I don't see what the big controversy is, all of the republican candidates are Pro-Life. Paul is the one candidate who, while he is pro life, believes it is a state issue along with practically everything else. At least Paul had the decency to have an intelligent conversation about it (though he did get a little wacky at the end), most other candidates rattle off some prepared crap.
His wording was far from perfect, such things happen when you aren't just reading from a prepared script, but I don't think he was trying to trivialize rape. He just seems to think that rape victims should handle any pregnancy risks quickly, instead of waiting weeks or months until there is a partially developed fetus to try to abort it. He also seems to be inferring that if later term rape abortions are allowed some people will use rape as an excuse to abort a child of a relationship that simply went bust after the pregnancy. It's a rather narrow viewpoint I agree, and a position I don't agree with (Pro-choice, up to about 4 months), but that whole debate seems to be moot, as he believes the federal government has no say in such things.
If you want to go that route, what are the rights of a tick? It's alive (arguably more alive than an undeveloped fetus), and it's living as a parasite on the blood of another -- just like a fetus.
We have to stop looking for 'Right' answers in this debate and work on functional ones. If you donate blood to save my life, good for you, but I have no right to demand it. The line is fairly obvious when you think about it. The woman's rights always trump the fetus.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"If me giving you blood will save your life AND will not harm mine I have a moral obligation to give it to you. but thats just me."
Agreed. Indeed, I'm an every six week donor. But that is MY morality (and yours, but that is your choice). Furthermore, I have no compunction about looking down my nose at people who don't share our leanings... but that's just personal. I would never dream of taking it to legislation.
A woman probably should carry a child to birth - and you and I are free to look down on her and not invite her to our dinner parties for not... But we have no business even SUGGESTING she be forced to do so against her will.
This isn't like the roads or infrastructure or police or fire service where society - literally the element that generates our rights for us - could be hurt. This is strictly a one vs. one benefit.
The difference in that analogy is human life versus animal life. You may not value a human life more than an animal's, and that's your choice, but many people do.
The difference is that a 3 year old is not LITERALLY a blood parasite.
And you are right rebulator. I am dubious of distinctions that have no hard and fast lines. Both topics we've blundered into in this discussion have no lines. "Human" only means something you are are firmly in the middle of it looking a long way to the edges, but those edges are like impressionistic paintings, the closer you look, the less you see. I'm human, but a dog isn't. But a dog is more intelligent, is in possession of more 'human-like' attributes than a child born with nothing more that a brain stem (and sadly, that dose happen). So where is the magic? Which do I protect?
I openly admit it: I cop out. I protect them both. Same as when 'human life' starts. Easy to look at the three year old and say "That is human." It's no where near any boundaries, but I would argue a haploid sperm is not human, so this magic line comes somewhere between the two points. Where? Maybe close to conception, maybe close to birth... Maybe nowhere. These are questions we can't have answers too - and anyone who claims to speak with authority on it is full of crap. So we have to settle for pragmatism. What works.
@nerys The legal abortion limit generally ends around the time the brain begins to develop so technically legally aborted fetuses aren't sentient either, they're really just sacks of cells. Just sayin.
A 3 year old IS a parasite. They're not going to survive in the wild on their own. It is not a "woman's choice" to abandon her child because it's not convenient or comfortable.
Incidentally, a baby is NOT part of the woman's body. Sure it resides there but it isn't her DNA.
@RogueGenius - this was refreshing:
"I openly admit it: I cop out. I protect them both. Same as when 'human life' starts. Easy to look at the three year old and say "That is human." It's no where near any boundaries, but I would argue a haploid sperm is not human, so this magic line comes somewhere between the two points. Where? Maybe close to conception, maybe close to birth... Maybe nowhere."
Doctors commonly deliver babies at 26 weeks. They're high risk and they're pre-mature but they can be delivered. I think it's safe to say that if a baby can be delivered and live, that it is a human life and can't simply be aborted.
It's true there is a lot of gray area. For example, the parents who utilized IVF, don't want to have more children, but they still have viable embryos in a freezer. I really don't think those parents are murderers for not implanting the remaining eggs.
Actually, I disagree. First of all a parasite is something that lives off the body or blood of a host. A more specific term is 'obligate parasite.' That's what a fetus is. A three year old, on the other hand isn't. The mother can die, get sick or just plain abandon the child at three. It will very likely survive, being raised by the male mate, a grandparent, a community, a village or the state. Even in Dickensian London, Oliver Twist survived, he just had a rotten life. But he wasn't a parasite. His mother died and he lived on. A parasite can't do that.
Should it be discarded as irrelevant? No. But I don't believe that ever happens. If a woman ever goes though a 'cavalier' abortion, she only does it once, having experienced the physical and emotional pain, she won't do it again. I believe women are well equipped to make this decision. We who don't possess the problem should really stay out of it.
Unfortunately what you said will go way over people's heads. A roach has a more advanced nervous system than young fetus but that fetus apparently has more rights. It has nothing to do with valuing human life or animal life more. A fully grown cow should have more right to life than a 12 week old fetus, but religion doesn't follow logic. I say this with all the condescension to "pro lifers" that is sounds like it does.
It's what you consider human life rebulator. There's no evidence that a early term fetus is aware of...anything. It doesn't feel pain, have any emotion, have hopes and dreams...anymore than a sperm does. It's a perfectly fine example to say an insect is technically more aware than a fetus by the virtue of it feeling pain and being aware of its surroundings. Yet it doesn't have any rights. We SHOULD treat a human fetus with more rights, but what the other are saying is that at an early stage the mothers rights trump it hands down.
The problem with the whole "you should deal with this quickly" argument is that rape is very traumatizing, and the survivor of that rape may not even consider her options after such an event. Trauma is powerful and confusing, and puts these people in situations to be blamed for their own "negligence."
That being said, if I were a woman and knew that I was raped, the hospital is one of the first places I would go. That, or the Police Department which should be informed on how to deal with a situation like this.
then the issue is education. people should be trained to both DEFEND themselves aggressively (even at the cost of their own lives) and to SEEK HELP immediately.
this will both reduce crime and SOLVE this issue for the most part.
by biting the dick off the guy trying to rape me. Even if it costs me my life. I have a zero tolerance policy for crime against my person. I resist till I win or am dead.
Lets hope I never have to test the "or dead" part.
I would too. At least, I would as I stand here. However, after a trauma?
I know a victim who could think of nothing but washing 'him' off of her. And so went all the forensic evidence. This was a smart woman, too. People in trauma can not be relied on to do the smart thing.
Some very ignorant people can think. Some very educated people can't. Nobody can think all the time, especially what injured or traumatized. That is just a fact.
If you are afraid of spiders, no matter how much education you get about them, the sight of a spider will make the hair on your neck stand up. You can't help it.
I'm always pro-education, but that isn't to say I think it solves EVERYTHING. It helps in everything, but it's not a solution to everything.
if it solves the problem for the vast majority of people its "counted as solved" in my book. it does not have to be 100%
and your comment is lacking in merit since we DO NOT TRY to educate/train on any sort of real national scale. instead we TRAIN to be subservient to police and authority.
A) my comment does not contain that quote. You are trying to 'win' by changing the facts of what was said.
B) My argument has all the merit in the world. Now it's YOU who are talking about social engineering. Education is not to change your thought processes, it's to inform them. It often changes the results, but not the function. But you won't take the human out of the human.
While I'll agree the completely uneducated lack the tools to think, let's not pretend it will turn us all into Mr. Spock.
Your argument has no merit. it does not apply to the discussion at hand. Typical TROLL response accuse me of what your doing.
if your not trying to proclaim it won't work because it won't fix EVERYONE then why bring up the identical issue via a minority of arachnophobic individuals?
Your intent was clear to me. if I misread your intent then EXPLAIN why you said that.
I did not say education as you imply.
I said TRAINING and Education.
the idea is not to be Mr Spock. the idea is to TRAIN and EDUCATE people to REDUCE CRIME.
Now, rather than at least acknowledging that I had a point, you are storming off in a huff. Which is fine. A little disappointing, but fine. People (and this is one of the few crimes all the parties do equally) have been treating politics as if it were a sporting event for so long that it really is how we see it now. My team. Your team. Nobody is interested in logic, or reason or pragmatism anymore - just winning. If you want win, cry troll and storm off.
I wish YOU were as honest about what you believe as I am. I don't care about winning. I counter what needs countered, mock what needs derided, and accept as correct that which is correct.
Oh, and BTW. Your quote is still there, clear for all to see: "its all about training and education."
And lastly, the arachnophobia was an example of a nature that can not be controlled by rationality. As a traumatized person can't control their actions.
But you know that. You just won't accept that your position is wrong on this point.
I have been traumatized before and I was able to control myself.
Some people are just naturally able to keep their cool some are not. ALMOST EVERYONE is somewhere inbetween NOT at one of the extremes as you seem to indicate.
TRAINING and EDUCATION can shift people "closer" to keeping their cool.
to soldier status? no but a bit closer than without training and education.
the ONLY way to reduce crime is to EMPOWER PEOPLE.
My position is correct. It can not be wrong as its the only "right" position if liberty and freedom are of any value to you.
"My position is correct. It can not be wrong as its the only "right" position if liberty and freedom are of any value to you."
Good god, are you serious? So you read that in a book and thus we must make reality bend to it. That even dumber than the fanatic religious nuts. They believe nonsense too, but at least the they say it's 'mystic' and you have to 'believe.' You actually think you can back that up with logic?
I happen to believe in freedom, I just have a more intelligent definition for the word than you. I don't know have freedom is to you, but it's pointless and unworkable.
Every single line in that response was wrong, but I'm not going to jump on any of it but the first. Not only are the grey areas EVERYWHERE it's a fundamental law of nature. Google Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Light is a particle... until it's a wave. Then it's a particle again. The whole damn universe is build on a foundation of uncertainty or "grey area."
I apologize for being mean to you. I'm beginning to realize you are very young.
Actually is a wave and particle at the same time. You choose which math you use based in the application you are working on. Maxwell or Quantum. We also seem above to 'coerce' it at any time.
But now we are both pedantic. The point is you were wrong.
The simple controversy is he touts himself as a Republican that wants to protect American access to individual liberties, but in reality, he's social conservative residing on the same page as the rest of GOP nominees -- MEANING they would enforce a decision for you against you're individual right.
He should avoid getting into this conversation altogether if he wants to be seen as a different choice than Romney/Newt- alas, it's evident they are seeking that solid base of Christian right wingers and need it for the nomination.
Quite un-libertarian of him and very 2012 Republican of him.
Coddling to the Christian right may get them a nomination, but they're going to be funked in general election by independents.
My response was directed at ano233 asking what the controversy is - which I feel is Ron Paul making the case against/for abortion in a rape case.
I like Paul, but honestly - if he stood for individual rights and liberty, the response is to say I'm pro choice and respect the woman to do what she wants with her body and baby - especially in the case of rape.
instantly, Paul could gather independent voters like me, which like him but wonder about his social conservative side.
Simple as that.
Religious folks need to stop worrying about what others do with their body and respect the choice. If they want to help there are so many adults and children that are farther along in their physical development than said fetus - and they truly need help.
Ron Paul is personally against abortion however politically he believes that it's a state-issue not a federal issue.
Sometimes what someone does with their body affects others.......like when their body pulls the trigger of a gun and shoots someone.
The fact is that at some point we declare an organic piece of flesh as having a life that's worth protecting. Some say it's at conception, some say it's at 26 weeks, some say it's at birth.
Frankly, it's not about "what a woman does with her own body" but rather "what a woman does with someone else's body". The fetus inside of her is genetically not her DNA and not her body.
Thanks for explanation of Paul's position, I find it concerning and unbecoming of him. He should focus on talking about military spending.
Santorum takes this a step further and feels contraception is a state issue... seriously...really...somehow this resonates with folks - like Catholics, 98% which practice family planning with contraception, while in churches they are politicizing and going against woman being able to get contraception with insurance..unreal.
A baby is a genetic combination of a man and woman - given a situation of rape, we should allow that person to make the choice they want pertaining to the DNA in her body remains her choice not a state or federal body.
In the minds of most Pro-Life people they are "protecting individual liberties" in their own twisted little way. By protecting the "right to live" of a lump of dividing cells that they imbue with an immortal soul. I agree that he is pandering a bit, he should defused the whole thing by just stating that he's "pro-life but the federal government has no right to meddle in something that is constitutionally a state issue". But as practically everyone knows, what republican would pass up the chance to get a few points with the religious base.
Libertarianism is concerned with protection of rights of persons. It does not prescribe a definition of when personhood begins.
There are pro life libertarians and pro choice libertarians, and many nuanced libertarian positions in between.
Even the official Libertarian Party which has a more specific platform than libertarianism in general specifically states that it is neither pro life nor pro choice.
Abortion is simply an issue. In this case, the girl that is raped should not be forced to mother the child. That's my position on the issue.
Democrats and Republicans vary on the issue. Reviewing the issue on the National level it all GOP nominees (including Paul) are overly socially conservative. In the end, I think Libertarians would majority wise support holding to the Roe v Wade ruling and support for having contraceptives covered in insurance.
I find it unfortunate. Hence, my post on this article and thoughts on Paul. He should leave it as a dead issue and focus on fiscal and military because he's not going to gather up more religious right voters than say Santorum. He could blast Santorum all day about his record in govt, which I hope he does.
My point is that it is not un-libertarian of Ron Paul to be pro-life.
His pro-life attitude is actually a religious point of view. Being religious does not exclude you from being a libertarian.
What I really wonder is why all of these self proclaimed religious democrats (every single federal elected representative except Pete Stark of California) is *not* pro-life.
Presumably the vast majority of these people believe in the idea of Jesus saving people's immortal souls. When do they think the souls enter the body?
I am an atheist. I don't believe in souls. I believe in science and turn to biology to answer questions related to abortion.
Until we have a more secular government, our only choices are:
1. true religious people with religiously deduced world views.
2. religious hypocrites (their world view does not reflect their religion)
3. religious imposters claiming to be religious for political gain.
As horrible as these choices are, for the time being I have to say for me choice #1 is the least repulsive.
At least Ron Paul is consistent in that he is a *true* pro-life person in that he also opposes the death penalty, and is anti-war. He values what he considers human life even if the human is Iranian, unborn, a murderer, etc. He is not a typical Republican, and I think it is not fair to frame him as such.
Suppose its unfair to group him with Libertarians, considering his run within their ranks. I'll give you Paul is a bird of a different feather in the GOP field - aside from social conservative. Also, he is consistent with human life in some forms, except when it comes to helping the poor with govt programs.
I didn't realize there was a good number of Libertarians that imposed their religious world view into law, figured they left it to the individual choice.
As for religious democrats - its clear they stand for choice and not to impose their religion on the state & individual. They keep their church and state separate as it should be.
I'm not so sure about your three choices - politicians are politicians. Depending on their social stances you can get an idea how they would lead a group of people or themselves like to be treated.
in the end, if someone raped my sister, I'd hope my community would let her make the choice. In the end its her responsibility to raise the child.
Actually Ron Paul for the most part doesn't want to impose his religious views on others.
He is opposed to constitutional amendments and federal laws both forbidding and legalizing abortion in the states. I would argue that the federal government *should* be involved in deciding when a unborn human becomes a person, but Ron Paul doesn't.
He would be opposed to both the Federal government forcing alabama to allow abortions as much as he would be opposed to the federal government forcing california to criminalize them.
So I really don;t see how this could count as imposing his religious beliefs on people. I see this as the exact opposite.
Furthermore, it is not against libertarian philosophy to use government force to impose a world view on people. Libertarians believe in rights. Rights need to be protected by the government. This is itself a worldview that is imposed on everybody by use of government choice. People are not afforded the "choice" to opt out of punishment for violating the rights of other people, even in a libertarian society.
In fact this is precisely *why* Ron Paul is personally opposed to abortion. He believes the fetus is a person (because of his religion), and that it's rights need to be protected, a *very* libertarian position given the premise.
Would religious democrats support decriminalizing murder in the theme of keeping religious morality (thou shall not kill) out of the law? Of course not. Both pro life and pro choice people are opposed to murder (especially of young children). The only difference is that pro life people usually grant personhood at conception and pro choice people grant personhood at some later date (e.g. birth). Both times are equally arbitrary.
But that is the real issue when it comes to abortion. When does a clump of human tissue become a person?
If you are not religious, it is easy to say this is simply a gray area and there is no clear moment when this happens.
If you are religious, you presumably think the soul grants personhood, and the question becomes when the soul enters the body. The fact that religious democrats sidestep this issue in my mind makes them either category #2 or category #3 christians, which I just can't respect at all. At least Ron Paul is consistent.
"in the end, if someone raped my sister, I'd hope my community would let her make the choice. In the end its her responsibility to raise the child."
What if your sister had a 1 week old child, and it was discovered that the child, who's father she thought was her husband, turned out to be the result of a rape she had suffered while unconscious. Should she be allowed to kill the 1 week old child that was a product of rape? Should this choice be hers? Why or why not?
To better illustrate my point, imagine a libertarian animal rights activist who believes animals are deserving of the same rights as humans, effectively categorizing them as persons (which is the position many animal rights activists take).
This person would support government force to protect the rights of animals. The rationale for this becomes the same rationale for protecting humans' right to life by prosecuting murderers, and people who kill animals would be treated as murderers.
Someone might claim that this person is not in fact a libertarian because they don't support the right of humans to eat the flesh of animals, but this is not a fair criticism.
Under every conception of libertarianism, the right to life of persons trumps any right to kill other people.
Mostly everyone's views specifically on right to life are libertarian. The only difference between pro-life, pro-choice, extreme animal-rights, and carnivores is who/what gets counted as a person.
Their libertarian bona fides are unaffected by there position of how to define personhood. It only depends on their positions regarding the rights of the things they categorize as people.
Ron Paul's opinions on issues like this are irrelevant. Why? He's a libertarian; his official stance is that the government has no business meddling in the private affairs of citizens. End of story.
So, Ron Paul doesn't want most mothers to abort their children? That's cool. Neither do I. Does Ron Paul want a government that forces his own personal vision morality on other Americans? No he doesn't, and neither do I.
Ron Paul can't succeed in American politics because he's both too intelligent and too honest.
Well yeah, from a practical standpoint, it's not even really possible for a society to exist without some sort of governance structure, but one could argue that a freer society doesn't come from a very strong federal government, but rather shows more local and democratic rule so that instead of a "one size fits all" mentality, different groups can moderate themselves in a way that makes the most sense for that particular group. It also enables more transparency and opportunity for personal participation. Also it provides choice and competition; you don't get locked into one set of rules with no way out.
Seeing as RP is running for federal office and is advocating power be transferred to the state, it's fairly clear that he personally is not looking to impose his particular moral or social values on the rest of the nation.
I think it's pretty obvious by "Honest Rape" that if an abortion in response to a rape occurs and it was really rape (as opposed to someone just claiming it was rape even though it was actually consensual) he'd be okay with it.'
He should just say it then rather than bumble on about it. Rick Santorum would rather the girl have baby, cut out the welfare, medical and food assistance on the young single mom and call it God's justice.
Piers Morgan has no idea what he's talking about here. It can take up to 3 days, sometimes a little longer, before the sperm reaches the ovum and conception happens. If you can prevent the conception, then you prevent the common definition of abortion.
I believe Ron Paul is trying to say that if you are raped, report it and get the preventative treatment. Coming in 7 months later claiming you were raped and trying to get the same treatment is a little different from that perspective, since conception already happened. I believe this is the difference between "honest rape" and the other situation. Anyone could come in 7 months into their pregnancy and ask for an abortion, if all they had to do was claim that they were raped.
This title is inflammatory, and intellectually dishonest. Shame on you geek22.
I was surprised that the length of time it takes the sperm to meet the egg and initiate conception was not clearly stated. The conversation almost made it sound like the argument was "sperm arrives, conception". Perhaps a result of editing that Paul would not further clarify this?
He shouldn't have used the word "honest" in describing rape, but I have no problem with his stance on what should be done. I am a bit confused why everyone is in an uproar. I understand why people are defending the fact that when you are raped, you are raped and we should never protect the abuser and turn the victim into a victim all over again, but Paul's answer is to me common sense approach to a very difficult issue. I think people are blinded by their own personal agenda and can't see the forest through the trees. There are people who claim to be raped that are not, BUT i don't believe it was relevant in this particular question and didn't need to be part of Paul's answer.
the only thing that should matter is that this is only his opinion. his political stance on ALL of these subjects is that the federal government shouldn't have the power to tell us what we can or cannot do. those is an issue for individual states to decide where you have more direct control of the voting senators and congressmen. As an OBGYN i can see where his point of view come from, however if you look at his voting history and listen to his speeches you would be able to see that he has no intention on taking his opinion and trying to make a federal law out of it
I like Ron Paul, of the Republican candidates running I think he's the least likely to push us into an unfounded war (ala Bush), start a holy war against the gay/lesbian community (ala Santorum), bankrupt the country while protecting his millionaire friends (ala Romney)
or drop the bomb on Iran (ala Gringrich). That said, I'm very disappointed with his comments on CNN. I had friends who were raped, and his "honest rape" statement is
a slap in their face.
so never heard of someone being "accused" of rape when they did no such thing ehh? how about someone just "CLAIMING" oh I was raped 7 months ago because they want an "easy out" from the responsibility of that baby?
can't happen? have YOU LOOKED at the population of this country and its devolving lack of basic intelligence and responsibility?
There is nothing wrong with his position but I do agree the words "honest rape" were a very bad choice of words in the context of this interview.
Why would they lie to the doctor about being raped, though? Rape is not a requirement for an abortion, so it's not like they need to lie to get an "easy out." Especially telling a lie that carries, what many believe, to be a negative social stigma.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I like Ron Paul too, he's seems like a truly genuine guy among politicians. Very rare indeed. He's just a little to "out there" for me to every support him for the presidency. He makes a great counter balance to a lot of the republican nonsense in congress though. That's where he belongs.
I had no idea there were types of rape - besides 'honest rape' what pray tell are the others? In fact, didn't even know rape was 'honest' - looking forward to the definitions
My hobby is fundraising for the wounded warrior project. I support service members who fight for our country & preserve our liberties including the right to free speech. I believe it's important to debate difficult topics such as abortion in the instance of rape. Personal attacks aren't required to effectively debate the many valid points on both sides of the issue. There's nothing funny about rape. Rape is a difficult subject for all involved no matter who the victim is.
Ron Paul believes there are circumstances that make abortion more or less acceptable. I believe there are no circumstances that make an inaccurate personal attack on the internet acceptable.
Don't really care about your hobby because it has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Your wifey opened her big mouth and decided to mock RP, so I mocked the hell out of her ass. One of the few men actually working to preserve our liberties is Ron Paul himself. You're right though, personal attacks aren't required to effectively debate, and I made nothing personal. Also ain't nobody sayin rape is funny, however there is such a thing as women out there claiming to be raped and have not been. End of story. You can head on back where ya came from on that high horse ya came in on.
First lets agree his word selection (regardless of motive or intent) where VERY poorly chosen. lets put that aside for a moment.
There are MANY "types" of rape (most of them are NOT rape but they get DEFINED as rape anyway)
how about a 19 year old having sex with his 2 year long 16 year old girlfriend? Fully Consenting mind you. or worse a girlfriend who lied about her age ? do you check ID and verify its not fake when you have sex?
In many places this is Statutory Rape. The states position is the consent of the 16yo is invalid so its automatically rape. (yet they have NO problem selectively charging under 18s as adults when it suits them too) So if they commit murder they ARE capable of making their own decisions and we can charge them as adults but if its just sex OH no they are not capable of making that decision so its rape.
How about a woman "cries" rape when it was consenting. Good luck defending yourself as the man. (happens a lot more often than you think and DESTROYS the life of the guy too)
How about when a woman cries rape when she does not want to have the child decides she does not want the responsibility any longer. Honey we can't have this baby too much work too much money WHATEVER reason. I will goto the police tell them 7 months ago I was raped and ashamed to say anything so we can abort it. (do you honestly think that won't happen? OFTEN ?)
I am all for mother's choice. SHE was first HER life is more important but if her life is not in danger. ?? does simply not wanting it justify murder? No one should EVER be forced to bear a child that was not their choice. EVER. but where do you draw the line? how do you prevent abuse and murder as a result of such a position?
this is what he means by "honest rape" rape has been so distorted and abused that YES there is "honest rape" but that is a VERY bad choice of words.
and he is not so eloquent at describing his position clearly. (it IS in fact a complicated issue)
tell that to the guy falsely accused. sorry bud you get no rights because there are not many of you. oh well.
Point stands also that if we allow no restrictions effectively on abortion the wolf cries will GO UP as false claims of rape to "get out" of pregnancy go up. at least in that case their should be no victims unless you count the baby.
"sorry bud you get no rights because there are not many of you."
Where did I suggest that they should get no rights?
You said it happened a lot more than I would think. I think the much more common scenario is the guilty rapist getting away with it, either because it doesn't get reported or due to lack of evidence.
But then again, I don't watch a lot of CSI.
"Point stands also that if we allow no restrictions effectively on abortion the wolf cries will GO UP"
Unless you just allow, as the law stands, women to terminate pregnancies as they see fit. Then there's no need for "wolf cries."
You implied the rights of the woman are superior to the rights of the man. its an either or in most cases. This is why guys getting accused have their lives DESTROYED because 10 years from then people DO NOT REMEMBER the acquittal they remember the ACCUSATION and that is enough.
but they get called rape unless you can prove otherwise. this is what he meant by HONEST RAPE. (again bad choice of words) he meant RAPE that was actually rape not rape that was "called" rape but really was not.
18 year old sleeping with a 17 year old boyfriend. The police and/or parents could press rape charges against the "adult" boyfriend, but it's hardly rape.
Similarly, teens who get pregnant and are later convinced by others (friends, family, police, etc) that they were raped when in reality they were willing participants.
Woman gets pregnant. Breaks up with Boyfriend. She decides that she's going to "make him pay" and declares that he raped her.
None of the above are "honest rapes" as RP puts it.
he's trying to hide the fact that he says he's all about government non-intervention and the freedom for people to be able to choose and do what they want while at the same time supporting and voting for the opposite.
just like the rest of the republicans in the party he's a member of.
We judge Ron Paul's positions in accordance with his rhetoric AND voting record. Particleman420 is correct to point out Dr. Paul's hypocritical position of opposing ALL government intervention while carving out a hypocritical exception for abortion.
While I tend to oppose some late-term abortions as he does (i.e., those which do NOT threaten a mother's life), most of the country supports a woman's right to make their own healthcare decisions. Adoption serves is a more humane, appropriate means of handling unwanted late-term pregnancies. This does not mean pro-choice advocates "endorse" abortion as Dr. Paul misrepresents, it means pro-choice advocates endorse a woman's right to make their own responsible healthcare decisions.
By the way, "responsibility" is based upon standards society defines as appropriate behavior, NOT what radical conservative ideologues believe.
Wrong. The responsibility is the Right of the First Person, not determined by society, as are All of Our Rights, of which none of the pro-lifers are about.
Inalienable Rights are not invalidated by the beliefs of others or by Our Government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
We all have an inalienable right to freedom. Correct?
Then by your standard, if a person kills someone else (i.e., irresponsible behavior), society has no right to deprive them of that "right" to freedom. Correct?
Wrong! Society determines which behavior is "protected" and which behavior is NOT.
Inalienable rights don't exist. ALL of your rights are afforded you by the society in which you live. Your current rights are determined by some words written on parchment over 200 years ago, and are continually revisited by the current government. You have no rights afforded you for just being alive, for in order to have this you have to have objective rule, of which there is none.
You're only just barely scratching the surface of philosolphy and you're already plunging into fallacy.
eraptor, you attempt the emotional defense of tyrants who defend fascism, by ignoring the fact that we are all First Persons with equal Rights, therefore murder of an existent person is an offense of that person's Rights. A murderer trespasses as a third party against the Right of the first person.
And anub1s, by the 9th Amendment, yes my Inalienable Rights are secured, and if anyone tries to invade my privacy to deprive me of them, then I have the 2nd Amendment and the Right to uphold and defend Liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
I understand what you and Dr. Paul are saying, I simply disagree with the narrow interpretation of what the Constitution represents to both of you.
While I stand by the core intent of the Constitution, applying Revolutionary-era standards of society to modern times is illogical. The Founding Father's understood this concept as much as I do.
I'm not suggesting we change that original intent as many Conservatives are prone to do for ideological and commercial purposes, simply that we adhere to the spirit of what the Founding Father's intended rather than the VERY narrow Fundamentalist interpretation some bring to it.
It does not. which by definition makes it a NON FEDERAL ISSUE.
Lets be clear. The constitution grants you no rights. the constitution is a contract that outlines the SPECIFIC EXPLICIT duties of government and some of what it is NOT permitted to do.
Second the constitution is EXPLICIT. not implicit.
this means while the constitution grants the government powers it ONLY grants them the SPECIFIC POWER listed in it. nothing more. nothing implied.
SO if a power is not explicitly covered by a provision in the constitution it is legally OUTSIDE THE PERVUE of the federal government.
its really that simple. to put it simple.
unless the constitutions explicitly says the federal government can do something then IT CAN NOT DO IT LAWFULLY.
You have no right or authority to "interpret" anything. the constitution is EXPLICIT (not up for interpretation) versus IMPLICIT (up for interpretation)
CONTRARY to popular belief and common abuse the Supreme Court is NOT LAWFULLY permitted to interpret the constitution.
its job is to INTERPRET THE ISSUE AT HAND and then "APPLY" the constitution to it or not.
if you were allowed to "interpret" the constitution it would have absolutely ZERO VALUE since you could simply INTERPRET it as ANYTHING YOU WANTED (which is exactly what we are doing)
There is only supposed to be ONE WAY to "interpret" or "change" the constitution and that is with a constitutional amendment.
well not all slavery. I mean indentured servitude is slavery and yet we have involuntary indentured servitude for every person in this country earning a wage.
It depends on when a fetus becomes a human. Once it's a human, it is covered by natural, inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What RP suggests, is that those rights have to extend to all human life or we risk encroaching upon the unborn child's liberties; thereby, regressing as a civilization.
So, when does a fetus become a human?
but the government IS supposed to protect rights and all human beings (even babies) have rights. So that is a valid place for government.
I don't have a real problem with RP's position on abortion I have a problem with his presentation. he needs to sit the hell down and SORT OUT HIS WORDING to explain himself to people.
they are asking a VERY complicated question that requires a complicated answer but they want a SIMPLE answer. they want a polar yes no answer and its simply NOT THAT SIMPLE.
but RP is also VERY bad at explaining himself. he needs to work on that. his lack of clarity makes him come off that way. he needs to work on that.
His basic position is if you have just been raped technically by all science NO LIFE exists yet. its in limbo at most its a fertilized egg and even that might not come to a full blown new lifeform.
so he is saying if your in this limbo period he has no problem with "PREVENTING" it from ever becoming a life.
this is no different than you ELECTING to not have sex to "PREVENT" the life from being created. so its morally ok.
Watch that interview again. Dr. Paul clearly stated that he believes "life begins at conception" (i.e., egg fertilization). This is consistent with far right conservative views, but inconsistent with the individual freedom he claims to fight for.
One can't claim to represent complete freedom from government intervention, then interject themselves into a woman's life the moment she decides to consider a healthcare procedure they disagree with. This inconsistency is hypocritical.
As I indicated earlier, I favor giving women more freedom than Dr. Paul does, but agree that there should be strict limits on late-term pregnancies. My position on this issue is based upon the developmental stages of a fertilized egg, not the point of fertilization (which most Conservatives favor).
Oh really. He said conception is egg fertilization? I must have missed that part.
and WHEN DOES Egg Fert happen exactly?
he NEVER claims to represent complete freedom from government intervention. Your arguments are 100% null and void so long as you stick to that thought.
he claims to represent a lawfully limited government that OBEYS THE DAMNED LAW (Constitution)
Don't take my word for what Dr. Paul said, watch the interview.
How old are you? When does egg fertilization occur? Take a sex ed. class!
As for Dr. Paul and you, you're free to believe whatever you want EVEN when you're wrong. However, the freedom of your beliefs END the moment you attempt to impose them on the majority of us.
Thank the Founding Father's for THAT Democratic political reality...
The answer to your conception question varies based upon several biological factors. Again, either consider taking a sex ed. class or Google the topic. There's ample material available on the subject.
See truthrox' response above as they appear to have summarized the fertilization process and our debate pretty succinctly.
I believe he was referring to women who wait until late term to declare their pregnancy a product of rape and initiate an abortion. He explains in the interview that he accepts hormonal treatments immediately after rape to terminate a potential pregnancy. Ultimately, his personal beliefs wouldn't be a factor, since he would return the debate to the states, where legislation will better reflect the wishes of the local populace.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The federal government is already controlled by far more insidious special interests. It is exponentially easier to control corruption on a state level.
The sad thing about Paul is... he's not hiding anything. When you adopt a 'ism' with the fanatical furor he has, anything that counters is, even logic and reality, are just wrong in your mind.
This is why people believe in nonsense like virgin births and talking snakes.
my exact thought. republicans are just so far removed from reality... even if he did believe that he should know to keep it to himself. but he doesn't. same sort of thing romney has been doing.
Saying "you were asking for it dressed like that" is blaming the victim. Saying "you can't have preventative treatment because it's too late" is not blaming the victim, it's informing the individual that a window of opportunity has closed.
oh man when I hear but look how she was dressed it just makes me realizes how devolved some of our population is. make me sick to be associated in the same species as that kind of person.
thats nuts. you're using semantics to obfuscate the fact you're blaming the victim.
you are also pretending that there is a way women can dress that invites violence. like a gazelle walking across the serengeti where lions are sitting.
it doesn't matter what a woman is wearing because its about a violent guy doing violence to a woman.
but thats not all -ron paul wants to be the one that decides if its ok to have an abortion. "sorry its too late. i had to play golf yesterday."
that is strictly a subjective decision. does it matter if she is 15 or 20 or 25? what exactly constitutes a threat to the rape victims health beyond having bee raped.
its not difficult to see how it would effect her mental health. its not difficult to see how having to quit school and loose a lifetimes opportunities effects her health.
ron paul... or you... or any of your anti abortion pro rapist rights guys should have no say.
if you've been around women that have been raped and seen what they go through you'd see just how disgusting your arguments are. if you'd seen what PTSD does to a woman then you'd know. you are arguing a case that virtually never happens.
but he did give you a glimpse into the way he thinks about it. "honest rape"
you can tell people that have a prejudice and people that have never been close to a rape victim.
typically the prejudice starts with the police who make the victim feel like they have done something wrong. its a nasty cold process to gather the evidence... not much better than the rape especially when done by doctors that want to find out if it was an "honest rape."
then for most women there are years of PTSD that they hide. i've had friends that had a silent smiling panic attack when guys sat on the same couch with her. thats the norm. over time she became suicidal... she ask her boy friend to take her to the emergency room and he refused because it would be embarrassing. he wondered if it was an "honest rape."
her friends kept her alive... with constant surveillance. this is the sad state of affairs that rape victims live through. the other sad state of affairs is that by the age of 18 25% of your moms and sisters and cousins have been sexually assaulted.
anyone that wants to ignore whats happening then you are very very small and pathetic.
I had no idea there were types of rape - besides 'honest rape' what pray tell are the others? In fact, didn't even know rape was 'honest' - looking forward to the definitions
Oh - is that what he told you? I thought he was referring to an instance where the rapist says the woman is lying and he is found innocent and the rapist's father also happens to be a senator. Thanks for clearing that up.
If the woman was lying, there wouldn't be a rapist. Sorta like when your husband caught you in bed with another man and you said he was "raping" you hahahahaha.
ROFL! You really think you're doing anything other than looking like an idiot? You seriously taking a macho stance . . . on the internet? Or is this some joke that went over my head?
My hobby is fundraising for the wounded warrior project. I support service members who fight for our country & preserve our liberties including the right to free speech. I believe it's important to debate difficult topics such as abortion in the instance of rape. Personal attacks aren't required to effectively debate the many valid points on both sides of the issue. There's nothing funny about rape. Rape is a difficult subject for all involved no matter who the victim is.
Ron Paul believes there are circumstances that make abortion more or less acceptable. I believe there are no circumstances that make an inaccurate personal attack on the internet acceptable.
You know what? If women are only allowed to have an abortion if they have been raped, you will find that many women will claim to have been raped - sending thousands of innocent men potentially to prison. Is THAT what you want?
I understood it, I just think it's bulls**t. The assumption here is there are women out their just mooning to cry rape. To think that you have to be the same type who think people are just mooning to get on welfare. Neither are true in significant digits.
Believe it or not, some people actually have sex for fun. I know, it is a weird concept. And in the heat of the moment, condoms DO slip off - it has happened to me, so it can happen to others.
And, I am not American and do no know all your state laws. But anyone defending the right to be the boss over someone elses body is a f**king control freak.
As opposed to being able to control oneself and the conditions around them.
Yes, people actually do have have sex for fun, as a matter of fact, most do. Hence the quote
"That's two adults making an adult decision to get it on."
Don't get me wrong, on this point, i am much more Libertarian than Paul. The Government should keep it's nose out of it, unless a true and just law has been broken.
If two people make a baby and can not afford it, I will be penalized by the government, to provide services for this child, which is what happens most in America.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I dont think every woman having an abortion is some promiscuous chick . . . and I hope women aren't willing to send their loved ones to prison just to have an abortion . . . But I see what you're sayin.
While I agree with your last statement, think about what you are saying. For the sake of less than 1 in 10, you want to hamstring the legal system. That's 9 'honest' rapists walking free on the same streets as your mother, your wife, your daughters.
That is hilarious, so essentially he's taking the "if a tree falls in a forest' defence... so if a shot of estrogen is given the day after a rape no one knows if a baby is there or not so it's ok... Just come out for or against it, don't give some philosophical explanation of how you could get around your own personal moral ambiguity.
I believe you'll find that most people who believe that life starts at conception are religious, and I further believe you'll find that those are the people that see this as a black and white issue.
That is likely true. If I were in such an ambiguously grey situation, I would prefer to err on the side of life as opposed to risking the killing of a non-fully developed person.
This is strictly my personal opinion. but to me once it has a brain it has rights. if it does not have a brain yet then it should be 100% mothers choice.
Once it has a brain the mother should have "less" choice (just like she can not "kill" her 3yo for any old reason)
100% of the time if it endangers the mother directly abortion should always be permitted.
I agree on that last part. If the mother's life is endangered it is no longer about taking life, but saving it. Although I think it should still ultimately be up to the mother.
@nerys I would agree with the idea of a brain, but what constitutes a brain? certain cells could be brain cells without having any brain activity. Again, it's a grey that I'm just not sure how to classify. Is anyone a wiz with bio that can better define this?
During the first several days after copulation, there's no way to verify a pregnancy; it's not a matter of intentional ignorance. It seems to me that RP has provided an unusually pragmatic paradigm for a decidedly complex issue.
If any situation merits abortion, then how can anyone justify denying abortion in other situations? I guess it is unjustifiable murder unless the woman didn't consent. But if she consented then it becomes murder. This conflict makes no sense to me.
Watch the Paulophiles rush to his defense, twisting and turning to explain what he REALLY meant. Fact is, Ron Paul is bat-s**t crazy. Time to admit it.
The guy has always opposed abortion as an act of violence; yet here we have him admitting that in the case of rape - a woman may want to go get an abortion.
When will the American populace understand that the President doesn't make laws and in this particular case can have no power over the law since it was made by the Supreme Court's decision in Roe Vs. Wade.
If you are worried about laws, including abortion, worry about your Congress which somehow gets elected and has a 17% approval rating. How many of you very vocal people voted the last time your Congress people were up for election? Do you even know when to go vote for that or is the presidency the only thing you have time for?
Ron Paul is a libertarian and this was an opinion. He always comes down on the side of personal liberty unlike ANY of the other candidates republican or democrat. So much freaking propaganda and lack of understanding of our government; Its just mind-bending...
Very interesting interview that really highlights the contention with the abortion debate.
I don't think Paul is being consistent in his belief here. In his book Liberty Defined he made it very clear that he believes life begins at conception which I do tend to agree with. That being said, he went on to label abortion, even early term abortion as murder.
If that is the case, how is abortion not murder in the case of rape? This is why I say he is being inconsistent. If abortion is murder because it represents taking a life, then ALL abortion is murder.
To me, we all as individuals own our bodies. That means a pregnant woman is well within her rights to receive an abortion because she could decide, at any moment, that she no longer wishes to have a child inside her. Obviously this belief gets questionable the further along a woman is in her pregnancy which is why I am highly conflicted on this issue.
Ultimately I don't condone abortion on a personal level unless it is in cases of actual real rape and incest. I'd much rather see woman who don't want to have a child become incentivized somehow to do so.
That's basically how I see abortion. Morally, I believe it is wrong but I also believe that the woman owns her body and has the right to choose. I feel, personally, that it should only be reserved for cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger.
However, it is NOT your choice - it is the woman's, and the woman's alone. You seem to think that if a kid gets born it will be cared for - well, have I got news for you. Some people cannot AFFORD kids. Some people, for reasons of their own, do not WANT kids. By denying them abortion, you FORCE people to live a life THE DO NOT WANT to protect a POTENTIAL human being, putting that baby into a world WHERE IT IS NOT WANTED.
No, abortion is not something that should be considered lightly. It is a difficult choice that every pregnant woman, who does not WANT a kid, must consider with the greatest care.
Morally, it has nothing to do with you or me. It is not OUR fetus.
Sorry, you probably did not deserve my rant - you seem a decent person. However, this abortion issue is for obvious reasons an emotional one and it is difficult to not get too in-your-face about it.
That last sentence should be the end of it right there.
We should not be telling a woman what to do with her body. It is none of our business and there definitely should not be any laws saying what she can and can not do.
BTW, no one is pro abortion. I know some women who have had abortions and all of them felt bad about it, but it was the best choice they had in a bad situation.
And yet I'm being buried for expressing that view. Go figure.
I feel as if there is some sort of communication breakdown, or maybe just an overall lack of reading skill, that is preventing people from seeing that I'm stating that it boils down to a woman owning her body. That outweighs my own personal view that it's morally wrong.
If a woman were to come to me and ask me her opinion, I'd tell her I don't believe in it and that she is taking a life. But, in the end, I would tell her that it's her choice to make.
And yet the guy I'm replying to is having a freak out session as though I'm demanding that all women should be forced to have their baby whether they want to or not.
It isn't that hard of a concept to see the world in shades that just aren't black and white.
but its ok for the women to tell someone else what to do with their body? not only someone else but someone who can not even SPEAK in their own defense! (the child inside her)
No sweat Jeff, these guys are left / right narrow minded thinkers. In their mind either you are for abortion or against it and that includes forcing your belief on others.
I'm with you on this, in the vast majority of cases I see abortion as immoral. In cases of rape or incest, however, there was no original consent by the mother so I see abortion in this case as analogous to escorting a trespasser off your property.
That being said, most abortions are the result of a consentual sex act between irresponsible adults. Does that mean I think they should be prohibited by the state from getting an abortion? Absolutely not.
That's what makes people like you and I different than the statists. We believe that people can have varying degrees of moral beliefs without having to enforce them on others. Some might call our stances nuanced, others might call them compatiable with free society.
I agree even consenting adults should be able to get an abortion if they decide they made a bad choice.
BUT I also believe there should be a legally enforced "point of no return" where short of mitigating circumstances the RIGHTS OF THE CHILD should mean something.
"putting that baby into a world WHERE IT IS NOT WANTED."
On this point you are full of crap. There are couples lining up to adopt these children.
On your other points.. In our society a woman has the option to kill her child if it is an inconvenience right up to the time the kid is delivered.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Unfortunately there are too many kids in unwanted homes already - and not enough adopting couples. It is also a big problem that many WANT to adopt, but the legal process is just really long winded.
"I feel, personally, that it should only be reserved for cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger."
That is great. Provided you truly approach the problem just that way: your PERSONAL view that you do not impose on anybody, even though voting. I don't have that specific of feelings, but I absolutely would not dream of take the decision out of the hands of the person closest to the issue -- the woman herself.
"I don't have that specific of feelings, but I absolutely would not dream of take the decision out of the hands of the person closest to the issue -- the woman herself."
Out of curiosity, you're okay with abortion occurring in the third trimester?
If life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? A fertilized embryo inside the uterus is in fact a group of living cells with a very high probability of becoming a walking talking human being.
By your definition of life, grandma who is on life support isn't actually alive.
Sperm and Ova are both fully alive BEFORE conception, so if 'life' is your only criteria, than you are in big trouble. You have to go back nearly 5 billion years before you can find a cell that was 'pre-life.' The question you are looking for is 'when does it become an independent life. And clearly, that is not until late in development.
We are simply going to have to accept he fact that there are no answers to these questions. This is kind of like "What color is the snow north of the north pole." When you get down to that many specifics, all lines are arbitrary - and the question itself is meaningless.
the issue is not conception. the issue is "WHEN IS" conception? sperm in teh vaginal canal? Sperm insertion into the egg? the first cell divide? what actually IS the point of conception?
he is accepting that if its rape the women SHOULD NOT be forced to bear a child. he is covering his moral compass by saying then lets DO IT before we "KNOW" if there is any conception or not.
that is all. I see nothing wrong with it.
Murder is murder but you can be JUSTIFIED in murder. When a soldier kills an enemy soldier he is committing murder. In fact he is committing premeditated aggravated murder in the 1st degree.
but its "justified" in a war. I see no conflict here.
When I kill someone attacking me on the street its MURDER I intend for that person to die.
but its JUSTIFIED I am defending myself from him trying to kill me.
so YES day after pill COULD be murder but we don't know so that is the best time to do it. BEFORE WE KNOW.
Murder is a legalese term that represents the unlawful taking of life, I think you need to revisit the definition. Self defense is NOT in any way shape or form murder.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
it appears you are correct. technically the world murder in all definitions I could find has a LEGAL attachment to the definition even though we don't really use it that way in general society but thats ok.
My statements stands. Replace all instances of "murder" with "kill"
1) Conception is not proof of human life. A blastocyst of 144 cells is not a human being, nor is a ten-thousand celled fetus.
2) I find Ron Paul phenomenally hypocritical about his response that "true rape" is "abortion-worthy". Either he believes a blastocyst is human life, or he doesn't. But its in keeping with his 1980s-1990s newsletters.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I don't think its relevant. if its rape the mother should be allowed to abort. Period. but only to a certain point. ie as a society we should decide on a certain "point" in the time line where it goes from being simple abortion to killing another person.
Ron Paul's exception only refers to the rule as it applies to 'honest rape' not the other types of rape. ...please explain the difference between honest rape and dishonest rape, or any other types of rape for that matter.
(wait - you forgot to mention the ones that are "lying about it")
You seem to be quite the expert on this theforeignwife...you should inform everyone that it's because you accused someone of raping you once so that your idiot husband would believe that you weren't cheating on him.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Just to clarify, my comment was referring to a previous post that was intended to make an example of an honest and dishonest rape. It was made in mockery not factuality.
I think the challenge comes when you leave human liberty issues like this to the states. The first time we left an issue of "what is a person" to the states we ended up fighting a civil war over it.
Hard time reading the constitution where it says all are "free". This was not left up to the states, And yes, The Civil War was not fought over slavery contrary to popular brainwashing in school.
Not sure why responses were all dug down. People are allowed to disagree. You could say that the Civil War was about states rights and property rights - the right to regulate slavery, how to enforce the return of escaped slaves, etc. and less about the slaves themselves. To say that slavery had nothing nothing to do with the Civil War seems a little disingenuous. Fights over things like the 3/5 compromise were clear indicators about the tension slavery caused the early republic, and how to deal with the concepts of slaves as property as opposed to people. The election of Lincoln, who had clear sympathies to the abolitionist movement, triggered the Succession, which triggered the Civil war.
Obviously, females are not to be trusted to properly assert when rape is actually rape. Each woman's claim should be investigated thoroughly by a task force consisting of unbiased men who, after a nine month period, can properly establish if a rape occurred.
In the meantime, to make sure that the woman's rights aren't trampled upon during the investigation, her status has a person should temporarily be suspended, and instead she should be referred to as an incubator, or the more "scientific" term, Axlotl Tank. This will allow us to maintain our libertarian principals, because you can't violate the liberties of a "thing". If we can make corporations legal people, I don't see any reason why we can demote somebody's humanity when a life is at stake.
Paul wants the government to stay out of our life as much as posible.. This is the libertarian view in which he is fairly consistant. Most Republicans and Democrats want to cherry pick where the government may intervene in our lives and the constitution be damned.
“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”
"Paul wants the government to stay out of our life as much as posible."
And yet, he has no problem sticking his nose in a woman's life.
He wants government out of our lives because he's an idiot. There are words for people who are not part of a strong unity: prey and victim are two of them.
One tidbit from this really caught my attention, when he said "people who like abortion."
I'm pro-choice, however I do not "like" abortion. I don't think ANYONE except sickos like abortion. This is loaded language that these "pro-lifers" use to demonize anyone who opposes their viewpoint. In fact, I find late term abortion very disturbing and I don't believe it should be legal past a certain point.
However, these self same politicians who claim to be "pro-LIFE" send our children away to KILL and DIE. Ron Paul is pretty much alone in being pro-life and anti-war, every other politician who is "pro-life" is also "pro-death" once the child reaches 18 and can be sent to kill and die. They are also the same politicians who are RIGHT NOW making drastic cuts to programs like WIC which provides nutrition to needy mothers and infants. Life is sacred right up until you exit the womb, then you can starve for all they care.
This appears to refer to his opinion on its morality, not its legality. He has stated his legal opinion on it many times before: that is should be a state decision.
Basically, that he considers it morally acceptable in case of rape, probably based on the libertarian principle of allowable self-defense.
I really don't think we should attack someone for talking about questions that nobody else is willing to offer their thoughts on. Because that is leading us to the point where every politician is like Mitt Romney and won't says anything outside of a very narrow set of talking points.
But why a state decision? Why should a rape victim have the choice to abort in one state but not another? This is one are that just makes so much more sense to be Federal and not state based. Penalties perhaps can be different, but whether something is allowed or not, or a crime or not just doesn't make sense to have 50 different applications.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
because maybe one state will get it right and another will get it wrong.
once its vetted out and we have the "best possible" answer maybe then if its important enough we can elevate it to an amendment (lawfully making it a federal issue)
but without that just going right to federal you do NOT necessarily get what is "RIGHT" you get what is DECREED by many times a single individual.
which is precisely WHY our system is supposed to prevent that.
I get what you're saying, but it seems mega inefficient. Power/law sharing b/w state and federal seems way overdue for an overhaul. I think it's one of the things Australia does really well, but then again, we're a lot smaller and newer the the US :)
it makes perfect sense. you see when PA and CA get it right and MD and FL get it wrong the citizens in MD and FL can say to their government SEE PA and CA got it right DO IT THEIR WAY or else and if they still refuse those people can MOVE ie vote with their feet.
but when its on central government you get ONE WAY AND ONLY ONE WAY regardless if its right or wrong.
remember the POINT is not to be efficient. efficiency is not relevant. the point is to retain FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.
we would not HAVE 50 different systems. we might have a FEW different systems but eventually you would get singularity as the systems all migrated to the most "ideal form" created amongst the many.
Not the form DECREED by one individual as is often the case in our current system. and that one individual in ALL PROBABILITY DOES NOT HAVE YOUR INTERESTS IN MIND. he has HIS interests in mind or the interests of the one PAYING HIM.
that is the point. LOTS of repetition. the more thinly we spread it the HARDER it is for corruption to get a foothold and the EASIER it is to rout it out when it tries.
Don't think you necessarily get whats right going state by state either and often still get what's decreed. And minority rights more often then not get ignored by state governments. Civil liberties, slavery, etc have a poor record of state by state control.
I think it's fair to say states should have more control over these issues but it just should be known what problems that would cause. Slavery might still be legal if we left it to the states.
when an issue is important enough (such as segregation slavery etc..) that is when and where the federal government is SUPPOSED to step in. to protect and defend the constitution.
that is what an AMENDMENT is for.
Your slavery example is a PERFECT example of the INTENDED government working exactly as it SHOULD WORK.
Seeing as how you took the time to read the article and comment, I'd say you do.
I worry about the future of this country when kids like you actually represent the more intelligent of your generation. Most of the people in my generation raised freedom hating social parasites, good job baby boomer assh**es.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"I worry about the future of this country when kids like you actually represent the more intelligent of your generation. Most of the people in my generation raised freedom hating social parasites, good job baby boomer assh**es."
...so much stupid, so little time...
The candidate with the most money tends to do pretty well.... He's not racist, and not a misognyist. I mean he's a f**king obgyn who only delivered what, 4,000 babies in his life as a doctor? Abortion is clearly a tough subject and can be a lot more complicated than people think. I am pro life, but only to the point where the mother's life is more at risk, making child birth impossible or in the cases of rape and incest.
I believe that 2 consenting adults that knowingly made the decision to sleep together, regardless of their intentions (such as if they wore a condom or were using birth control), should be responsible for their own actions. If a woman is not yet ready to become pregnant, then she can always give the child up for adoption.
The biggest question I think people face is where do we draw the line? Do we let a woman abort a fetus that is about 9 months old that has a heartbeat of its own? Do we only let a woman abort a fetus up until the first or second trimester? He's simply making the case that it's obviously a heated subject and although he believes in life at conception, he's also realizing that a woman that did not CHOOSE to get raped or molested should not have to go through the burden of a pregnancy. The thing about rape is we need to teach women not to be afraid of speaking up about their health, and getting a shot of estrogen or the use of a plan B pill or something early enough before enough time goes by for the sperm to fertilize the egg.
With that said, he also believes in personal responsibility, meaning a woman has already CHOSEN to have sex, and therefore MUST be ready for motherhood. The simplest way a woman can prevent an unwanted pregnancy is to NOT HAVE SEX. There's a novel idea... Something is really wrong with our species to continue to abort fetuses out of inconvenience or a lack of planning on the couple's part.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The point is where we draw the line. A woman who doesn't "eat right" or take care of the fetus "properly" facing legal ramifications because human life (therefore human rights) begins at conception can become a slippery slope that I, for one, do not want to fall for.
Yes, adoption is a better answer but tell that to all the kids in the foster care system that will never be adopted.
Outlawing abortion should only happen when orphanages are empty and social workers are sitting there with nothing to do...
As a "foster sister" to some of those in the foster care system- and as many "suicide watches" as I've been on.... I would say that yes some (not all) of those kids felt that they would be better off dead. Usually because they took their sense of self-worth from the fact that their mother did not want them.
The common response to "get over it" is to separate themselves from caring what the rest of the world thought about them - which is also often the response for those that end up in our jail systems. Again, this is for some - not all - of those in the system.
For many people being adopted (and for some in the foster care system as well) this is a great experience and they've grown up very well adjusted. And this is the best solution. However, reality is that there are plenty of people this does not work out for and it all starts with: if the mother wants the kid - she'll take of the kid, and if she doesn't ...well...we all pay for it one way or another.
Not everyone is strong enough to ignore the rejection, and every one of those kids is scarred for life.
I did not say ask the kids. I said ask them when they are adults.
what YOU describe is irrelevant since the SAME thing could happen with perfectly normal parents with kids raised in a less than perfect life.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Because it's acceptable to use violence in self-defense against an act of aggression. That's one of the most basic elements of libertarian ideology, and is pretty consistent with defensive war being the only justified war.
"If someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to kill someone, you're not morally responsible for it.
If someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to conceive, you're not responsible for it. "
I assume a simple typo but in your second example YES you are responsible (you did it after all) your not MORALLY responsible because someone else made you do it (just wanted to be clear on that)
we are talking about two SEPARATE acts here.
ONE act is the non consentual sex IE rape. of that you are NOT morally responsible.
The other is TERMINATING another life. where is the GUN making you kill the baby?
should a mother be forced to keep a baby from rape? NO
Should she be allowed to abort it? MAYBE
the maybe comes from WHEN in my book.
if at any time the baby imminently threatens the mother than mother's choice should always win 100% of the time.
the maybe comes from when the baby does NOT threaten the mother.
Immediately afterward it should always be mothers choice (EVEN IN CONSENTING SEX)
but once it becomes what we recognize as Sentient Life it should have RIGHTS.
the issue for me is not if but when. WHEN does it count as sentient life. I say when it has a brain and can "make decisions"
"the issue for me is not if but when. WHEN does it count as sentient life. I say when it has a brain and can "make decisions""
And this is where we can start coming towards an agreement.
Most people don't think that abortion is good at 9 months. And, a high percent of people agree that abortion/the morning after pill within 24 hours of sex is not bad.
So - I think that we have, minimally, created a window of when abortion is not bad (for most): within the first trimester...
Actually, it's because his beliefs on abortion are not consistent to the same principles that his economic beliefs are, that he is wrong on the subject of abortion.
His economic views consistently apply property rights, based on the non-aggression principle.
His views on abortion take only account of the fetus. . . and ignore the woman's absolute right to her body.
Ron Paul's not perfect. . . but he sure is in a whole other league than the rest of the politicians (democrat and republican alike), in being correct and consistent.
You wouldn't agree either way, though. Your concept of morality and of rights is based on a fleeting expediency of the moment. . . whatever the masses want; even if the majority is of only 51% who would tyrannize the 49%. Your thought processes and worldview have no basis in logic or even a fundamental understanding of epistemology. . . .simply a cursory examination of "facts" with which you form a superficial and incorrect model of the universe around you. . . you still think everything revolves around the state (i.e. you are thinking geocentrically), that is why life seems so complex and zero-sum to you. . . it requires complexities and mind-bending machinations to explain the data, your observations. . . . there are those like Ron Paul (who are more like a modern day copernicus; except where it comes to a few issues, like abortion), they have the same data and make the same observations as people like you; but instead of making a superficial judgement on the world around them, based on the same data and "facts" that you have, they look more deeply and develop a theoretical framework, which provides a more simple, but beautiful interpretation of the facts; which eliminates the need for the complexities, the machinations, the web of state interventions, in order to explain the true workings of an economy. . . . we do indeed revolve around the sun, and not the other way around. If you can just open your mind to this simple fact (economic progress does not revolve around the state), then a whole world of truth and enlightenment are opened to your eyes.
Some of us, like Ron Paul see this, and (his obvious flaws aside), it is nothing if not laughable to hear criticism of his economic theories from a Ptolemy like you. You are nothing but a Catholic church to a Galileo. You are completely out of your league and intellect to even a person as inconsistent as Ron Paul.
Nice screed, but my concept of morality is too complicated for you, or Paul, to grasp. And having actually read the works of Kant, Smith, Hobbs, Locke (Names I'm sure you quote, but have clearly never read) not to mention the old standards of Aquinas, Augustine -- even Aristotle. I have a fairly well rounded concept of ethics and morality. Surely better than your inferior 'cram everything in the same hole' morality. But, simple concepts for simple minds I guess. I really shouldn't expect better of you -- and I certainly don't expect better of Paul, who fairly consistently rides the crazy train wherever it takes him.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I have an opinion that you shouldn't be using the name of a great OS to be spouting right-wing nonsense.
Hey, I have a right to that opinion, right? *Hint* I don't really. It doesn't really affect me, and the right thing to do is just shut up about it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
This, in a nutshell, is why America keeps failing. We have the completely baseless notion that there is a fundamental 'right' and that we have the right to impose that on all. Morality is a social contract and doesn't exist outside a social system. There is no "God given' right or wrong.
With a gun somebody else made for you. And without civilization (The hated 'collective' libertarians are always demonizing), you better hope there are no more wolves than rounds your than your clip holds, because you won't be getting any more.
I don't really want you to die for no reason, but if you insist on it, I guess that's just evolution. One way or another, your way turned out to be a dead end.
And he said this to what I think is the biggest advertisement for the wonders of abortion. Seriously, f**k Piers Morgan right up the arse with an anglepoise lamp.
As a "foster sister" to some of those in the foster care system- and as many "suicide watches" as I've been on.... I would say that yes some (not all) of those kids felt that they would be better off dead. Usually because they took their sense of self-worth from the fact that their mother did not want them.
The common response to "get over it" is to separate themselves from caring what the rest of the world thought about them - which is also often the response for those that end up in our jail systems. Again, this is for some - not all - of those in the system.
For many people being adopted (and for some in the foster care system as well) this is a great experience and they've grown up very well adjusted. And this is the best solution. However, reality is that there are plenty of people this does not work out for and it all starts with: if the mother wants the kid - she'll take of the kid, and if she doesn't ...well...we all pay for it one way or another.
Not everyone is strong enough to ignore the rejection, and every one of those kids is scarred for life.
If you think of pregnancy in terms of having another human being hooked up to you so that they can survive by being fed from your body, the reason to keep abortions legal becomes clear. If you make the claim that it is one person's responsibility to maintain the life of another, even to the point of requiring the former to provide that support from their own body, you now establish the basis whereupon ANYONE can be saddled with that responsibility. A gross, but plausible example might be some "important person" who needs a liver transplant and a candidate with a good tissue match is found but refuses to consent to donating a part of his or her liver to save this other person's life. Requiring life-saving or life-sustaining donations by law would require this donor to undergo possibly life-threatening (certainly life-altering) surgery to save the other.
And, if you think pregnancy is neither life-threatening nor life-altering, ask someone who's been pregnant and had kids.
You do realize that the majority of reported rapes are total bulls**t right?
Just saying.
It's obvious that a lot of women are claiming they are raped in order to justify unnecessary abortions, to justify assassinating their unborn child. Not because they were raped, but because they're irresponsible and don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions.
A lot of these problems with abortion would not be an issue if the GOP would embrace comprehensive sex education. That means giving the real data on how birth control works and its effectiveness. Offering free birth control to those who cannot afford it. Stop spreading lies on the effectiveness of even simply using condoms you have people running around saying you may as well have a screen from a screen door around your penis. We keep pushing abstinence only programs which are clearly ineffective.
When are people going to get that Ron Paul is far from an intelligent man. He can't state his opinions consistently and eloquently, his stand on most topics are extreme at best, and he doesn't believe in evolution. To think that his beliefs won't effect his governing is completely naive. The man is a nutcase, deal with it and move on to a more realistic candidate. Just because he's the underdog, and is apparently "honest" doesn't make him a viable candidate. Ron Paul "fans" need to move beyond their stage of teenage rebellion and see the ridiculousness of Ron Pauls positions.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I think people are finally starting to realize that it's impossible to support Paul if you're not a white heterosexual man from a decently privileged background (like 95% of libertarians).
What he is essentially saying here is that only "pure women" are entitled to abortions - all the others are undeserving sluts.
And while Paul is against the Federal government from intruding in peoples lives, he would just give individual states strong liberties to f*ck with you. The guy is a nut job.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Pro Abortion you have 2 options: Have the Baby, Discard the baby. Anti-Abortion you have 1 option: Have the baby. So if Ron Paul is Anti-Abortion he is giving no freedom of choice over a woman's body.
It is sad how some women wait 2-7 months than decide to have an abortion even if the baby is healthy. If you are having sex and do not want a baby what is it so hard to take your birth control pills or make sure the guy has a rubber on, take f**king responsibility. Keep abortion legal.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Nobody is pro-poverty either, but by subsidizing welfare the way our government does, we have actually increased the numbers of poor and those in need of assistance. It's the result of an immutable economic law.
I'm a person who believes that a woman's body is her property and her right to *legally* evict an unwanted fetus.
However, the last thing we should be doing as a society is essentially subsidizing abortion. We want the medical technology and option available, of course, but in some ways we practically throw planned parenthood and girls and woman, and make it seem like there aren't other options.
It's a societal issue, in my mind, not so much a legal one; if we hadn't made it a legal issue, I believe that there would actually be fewer abortions done, because the backlash was a societal response to not only protect the right to abort a fetus, but to ensconce it as almost a medical necessity for those who don't want to have the baby.
Ron Paul 2012 Will WIN ..From Canada..Down with the new world order way of slave/control of free will..Lots of new world order sh*t puppets like mitt and CNN ect.. People are waking up controlled media mindless assh**es ..Rothschild and other oppressors this is no JOKE,,YOU LOSE..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Life does begin at conception"
"Well, you don't know if you're taking a life either..."
MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND.
*facepalm*. It's pretty bad when the overall best chance the GOP had at redemption said something as f**k-stupid as that. This is the best they have, folks...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The point at which the sperm fertilizes the egg...
I need to stop visiting Digg. I already have a bad enough image of humanity without people like you around.
You *do* realize you can't abort without conception occurring, right? PLEASE tell me you understand this basic concept. If you do, then you'll understand why Paul's comment is STUPID.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ano233Feb 5, 2012
I don't see what the big controversy is, all of the republican candidates are Pro-Life. Paul is the one candidate who, while he is pro life, believes it is a state issue along with practically everything else. At least Paul had the decency to have an intelligent conversation about it (though he did get a little wacky at the end), most other candidates rattle off some prepared crap.
chilidogsFeb 5, 2012
It's not about being pro life it's about trivializing rape.
quisquisFeb 5, 2012
It's not about him trivializing rape, it's about false accusers trivializing rape.
ano233Feb 5, 2012
His wording was far from perfect, such things happen when you aren't just reading from a prepared script, but I don't think he was trying to trivialize rape. He just seems to think that rape victims should handle any pregnancy risks quickly, instead of waiting weeks or months until there is a partially developed fetus to try to abort it. He also seems to be inferring that if later term rape abortions are allowed some people will use rape as an excuse to abort a child of a relationship that simply went bust after the pregnancy. It's a rather narrow viewpoint I agree, and a position I don't agree with (Pro-choice, up to about 4 months), but that whole debate seems to be moot, as he believes the federal government has no say in such things.
nerysFeb 5, 2012
I agree. I have lost count of how stories you hear of women gets pregnant "father goes poof" on finding out.
now what? Where is the balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child inside her?
roguegeniusFeb 6, 2012
If you want to go that route, what are the rights of a tick? It's alive (arguably more alive than an undeveloped fetus), and it's living as a parasite on the blood of another -- just like a fetus.
We have to stop looking for 'Right' answers in this debate and work on functional ones. If you donate blood to save my life, good for you, but I have no right to demand it. The line is fairly obvious when you think about it. The woman's rights always trump the fetus.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
its not sentient. and I DO believe animals have "SOME" rights. the rights of decency and non cruelty especially if they can feel pain.
If me giving you blood will save your life AND will not harm mine I have a moral obligation to give it to you. but thats just me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 6, 2012
"If me giving you blood will save your life AND will not harm mine I have a moral obligation to give it to you. but thats just me."
Agreed. Indeed, I'm an every six week donor. But that is MY morality (and yours, but that is your choice). Furthermore, I have no compunction about looking down my nose at people who don't share our leanings... but that's just personal. I would never dream of taking it to legislation.
A woman probably should carry a child to birth - and you and I are free to look down on her and not invite her to our dinner parties for not... But we have no business even SUGGESTING she be forced to do so against her will.
This isn't like the roads or infrastructure or police or fire service where society - literally the element that generates our rights for us - could be hurt. This is strictly a one vs. one benefit.
rebulatorFeb 6, 2012
The difference in that analogy is human life versus animal life. You may not value a human life more than an animal's, and that's your choice, but many people do.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
so why can't the mother kill her 3 year old because its too much work or a burden?
its her choice right?
roguegeniusFeb 6, 2012
The difference is that a 3 year old is not LITERALLY a blood parasite.
And you are right rebulator. I am dubious of distinctions that have no hard and fast lines. Both topics we've blundered into in this discussion have no lines. "Human" only means something you are are firmly in the middle of it looking a long way to the edges, but those edges are like impressionistic paintings, the closer you look, the less you see. I'm human, but a dog isn't. But a dog is more intelligent, is in possession of more 'human-like' attributes than a child born with nothing more that a brain stem (and sadly, that dose happen). So where is the magic? Which do I protect?
I openly admit it: I cop out. I protect them both. Same as when 'human life' starts. Easy to look at the three year old and say "That is human." It's no where near any boundaries, but I would argue a haploid sperm is not human, so this magic line comes somewhere between the two points. Where? Maybe close to conception, maybe close to birth... Maybe nowhere. These are questions we can't have answers too - and anyone who claims to speak with authority on it is full of crap. So we have to settle for pragmatism. What works.
tehravenFeb 6, 2012
@nerys The legal abortion limit generally ends around the time the brain begins to develop so technically legally aborted fetuses aren't sentient either, they're really just sacks of cells. Just sayin.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
Well I agree with that. Brain = rights in my book. before brain abort for any reason I don't care.
hibby76Feb 6, 2012
A 3 year old IS a parasite. They're not going to survive in the wild on their own. It is not a "woman's choice" to abandon her child because it's not convenient or comfortable.
Incidentally, a baby is NOT part of the woman's body. Sure it resides there but it isn't her DNA.
@RogueGenius - this was refreshing:
"I openly admit it: I cop out. I protect them both. Same as when 'human life' starts. Easy to look at the three year old and say "That is human." It's no where near any boundaries, but I would argue a haploid sperm is not human, so this magic line comes somewhere between the two points. Where? Maybe close to conception, maybe close to birth... Maybe nowhere."
Doctors commonly deliver babies at 26 weeks. They're high risk and they're pre-mature but they can be delivered. I think it's safe to say that if a baby can be delivered and live, that it is a human life and can't simply be aborted.
It's true there is a lot of gray area. For example, the parents who utilized IVF, don't want to have more children, but they still have viable embryos in a freezer. I really don't think those parents are murderers for not implanting the remaining eggs.
roguegeniusFeb 7, 2012
Actually, I disagree. First of all a parasite is something that lives off the body or blood of a host. A more specific term is 'obligate parasite.' That's what a fetus is. A three year old, on the other hand isn't. The mother can die, get sick or just plain abandon the child at three. It will very likely survive, being raised by the male mate, a grandparent, a community, a village or the state. Even in Dickensian London, Oliver Twist survived, he just had a rotten life. But he wasn't a parasite. His mother died and he lived on. A parasite can't do that.
Should it be discarded as irrelevant? No. But I don't believe that ever happens. If a woman ever goes though a 'cavalier' abortion, she only does it once, having experienced the physical and emotional pain, she won't do it again. I believe women are well equipped to make this decision. We who don't possess the problem should really stay out of it.
Evilswine32Feb 8, 2012
Unfortunately what you said will go way over people's heads. A roach has a more advanced nervous system than young fetus but that fetus apparently has more rights. It has nothing to do with valuing human life or animal life more. A fully grown cow should have more right to life than a 12 week old fetus, but religion doesn't follow logic. I say this with all the condescension to "pro lifers" that is sounds like it does.
Evilswine32Feb 22, 2012
It's what you consider human life rebulator. There's no evidence that a early term fetus is aware of...anything. It doesn't feel pain, have any emotion, have hopes and dreams...anymore than a sperm does. It's a perfectly fine example to say an insect is technically more aware than a fetus by the virtue of it feeling pain and being aware of its surroundings. Yet it doesn't have any rights. We SHOULD treat a human fetus with more rights, but what the other are saying is that at an early stage the mothers rights trump it hands down.
rebulatorFeb 6, 2012
The problem with the whole "you should deal with this quickly" argument is that rape is very traumatizing, and the survivor of that rape may not even consider her options after such an event. Trauma is powerful and confusing, and puts these people in situations to be blamed for their own "negligence."
That being said, if I were a woman and knew that I was raped, the hospital is one of the first places I would go. That, or the Police Department which should be informed on how to deal with a situation like this.
Still, so much grey area...
nerysFeb 6, 2012
then the issue is education. people should be trained to both DEFEND themselves aggressively (even at the cost of their own lives) and to SEEK HELP immediately.
this will both reduce crime and SOLVE this issue for the most part.
roguegeniusFeb 7, 2012
Seek help from whom? Aren't you against anything that is not for yourself? Isn't that the whole Ayn Rand/Ron Paul thing?
Evilswine32Feb 9, 2012
What a pitiful excuse for a human being you are nerys. Like to see how well you handle being raped.
nerysFeb 9, 2012
by biting the dick off the guy trying to rape me. Even if it costs me my life. I have a zero tolerance policy for crime against my person. I resist till I win or am dead.
Lets hope I never have to test the "or dead" part.
roguegeniusFeb 23, 2012
That exactly what it is nerys. Hope. Blind, unthinking hope, backed by nothing.
roguegeniusFeb 6, 2012
I would too. At least, I would as I stand here. However, after a trauma?
I know a victim who could think of nothing but washing 'him' off of her. And so went all the forensic evidence. This was a smart woman, too. People in trauma can not be relied on to do the smart thing.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
its all about training and education.
roguegeniusFeb 7, 2012
Some very ignorant people can think. Some very educated people can't. Nobody can think all the time, especially what injured or traumatized. That is just a fact.
If you are afraid of spiders, no matter how much education you get about them, the sight of a spider will make the hair on your neck stand up. You can't help it.
I'm always pro-education, but that isn't to say I think it solves EVERYTHING. It helps in everything, but it's not a solution to everything.
nerysFeb 7, 2012
if it solves the problem for the vast majority of people its "counted as solved" in my book. it does not have to be 100%
and your comment is lacking in merit since we DO NOT TRY to educate/train on any sort of real national scale. instead we TRAIN to be subservient to police and authority.
roguegeniusFeb 7, 2012
A) my comment does not contain that quote. You are trying to 'win' by changing the facts of what was said.
B) My argument has all the merit in the world. Now it's YOU who are talking about social engineering. Education is not to change your thought processes, it's to inform them. It often changes the results, but not the function. But you won't take the human out of the human.
While I'll agree the completely uneducated lack the tools to think, let's not pretend it will turn us all into Mr. Spock.
nerysFeb 7, 2012
Your argument has no merit. it does not apply to the discussion at hand. Typical TROLL response accuse me of what your doing.
if your not trying to proclaim it won't work because it won't fix EVERYONE then why bring up the identical issue via a minority of arachnophobic individuals?
Your intent was clear to me. if I misread your intent then EXPLAIN why you said that.
I did not say education as you imply.
I said TRAINING and Education.
the idea is not to be Mr Spock. the idea is to TRAIN and EDUCATE people to REDUCE CRIME.
its really that simple.
roguegeniusFeb 8, 2012
Now, rather than at least acknowledging that I had a point, you are storming off in a huff. Which is fine. A little disappointing, but fine. People (and this is one of the few crimes all the parties do equally) have been treating politics as if it were a sporting event for so long that it really is how we see it now. My team. Your team. Nobody is interested in logic, or reason or pragmatism anymore - just winning. If you want win, cry troll and storm off.
I wish YOU were as honest about what you believe as I am. I don't care about winning. I counter what needs countered, mock what needs derided, and accept as correct that which is correct.
Oh, and BTW. Your quote is still there, clear for all to see: "its all about training and education."
roguegeniusFeb 8, 2012
And lastly, the arachnophobia was an example of a nature that can not be controlled by rationality. As a traumatized person can't control their actions.
But you know that. You just won't accept that your position is wrong on this point.
nerysFeb 9, 2012
You are making a ridiculous dramatization.
I have been traumatized before and I was able to control myself.
Some people are just naturally able to keep their cool some are not. ALMOST EVERYONE is somewhere inbetween NOT at one of the extremes as you seem to indicate.
TRAINING and EDUCATION can shift people "closer" to keeping their cool.
to soldier status? no but a bit closer than without training and education.
the ONLY way to reduce crime is to EMPOWER PEOPLE.
My position is correct. It can not be wrong as its the only "right" position if liberty and freedom are of any value to you.
roguegeniusFeb 9, 2012
"My position is correct. It can not be wrong as its the only "right" position if liberty and freedom are of any value to you."
Good god, are you serious? So you read that in a book and thus we must make reality bend to it. That even dumber than the fanatic religious nuts. They believe nonsense too, but at least the they say it's 'mystic' and you have to 'believe.' You actually think you can back that up with logic?
I happen to believe in freedom, I just have a more intelligent definition for the word than you. I don't know have freedom is to you, but it's pointless and unworkable.
nerysFeb 9, 2012
No book.
its reality. things like this tend to be pretty polar. the "grey" area in the middle is very tiny.
either you EMPOWER PEOPLE or you have a Police State (assuming the people demand crime be dealt with)
there is not a whole lot of wiggle room inbetween. its like a bell curve but "in reality"
if you stray from the grey area inbetween (which is like the pin head of a needle) you tend to "SLIDE" to one side or the other.
instead of insulting me EXPLAIN how you think I am wrong.
roguegeniusFeb 9, 2012
Every single line in that response was wrong, but I'm not going to jump on any of it but the first. Not only are the grey areas EVERYWHERE it's a fundamental law of nature. Google Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Light is a particle... until it's a wave. Then it's a particle again. The whole damn universe is build on a foundation of uncertainty or "grey area."
I apologize for being mean to you. I'm beginning to realize you are very young.
nerysFeb 23, 2012
actually your example proves my point.
Light is polar. BLACK AND WHITE. ZERO GREY AT ALL.
it is either a wave or a particle NEVER both at the same time.
your "perception" is what is grey not the reality.
roguegeniusFeb 23, 2012
Actually is a wave and particle at the same time. You choose which math you use based in the application you are working on. Maxwell or Quantum. We also seem above to 'coerce' it at any time.
But now we are both pedantic. The point is you were wrong.
aces2mexicoFeb 6, 2012
The simple controversy is he touts himself as a Republican that wants to protect American access to individual liberties, but in reality, he's social conservative residing on the same page as the rest of GOP nominees -- MEANING they would enforce a decision for you against you're individual right.
He should avoid getting into this conversation altogether if he wants to be seen as a different choice than Romney/Newt- alas, it's evident they are seeking that solid base of Christian right wingers and need it for the nomination.
Quite un-libertarian of him and very 2012 Republican of him.
Coddling to the Christian right may get them a nomination, but they're going to be funked in general election by independents.
hibby76Feb 6, 2012
Hardly so. The question is simply "At what point does a fetus have rights"?
aces2mexicoFeb 6, 2012
My response was directed at ano233 asking what the controversy is - which I feel is Ron Paul making the case against/for abortion in a rape case.
I like Paul, but honestly - if he stood for individual rights and liberty, the response is to say I'm pro choice and respect the woman to do what she wants with her body and baby - especially in the case of rape.
instantly, Paul could gather independent voters like me, which like him but wonder about his social conservative side.
Simple as that.
Religious folks need to stop worrying about what others do with their body and respect the choice. If they want to help there are so many adults and children that are farther along in their physical development than said fetus - and they truly need help.
hibby76Feb 6, 2012
Ron Paul is personally against abortion however politically he believes that it's a state-issue not a federal issue.
Sometimes what someone does with their body affects others.......like when their body pulls the trigger of a gun and shoots someone.
The fact is that at some point we declare an organic piece of flesh as having a life that's worth protecting. Some say it's at conception, some say it's at 26 weeks, some say it's at birth.
Frankly, it's not about "what a woman does with her own body" but rather "what a woman does with someone else's body". The fetus inside of her is genetically not her DNA and not her body.
aces2mexicoFeb 7, 2012
Thanks for explanation of Paul's position, I find it concerning and unbecoming of him. He should focus on talking about military spending.
Santorum takes this a step further and feels contraception is a state issue... seriously...really...somehow this resonates with folks - like Catholics, 98% which practice family planning with contraception, while in churches they are politicizing and going against woman being able to get contraception with insurance..unreal.
A baby is a genetic combination of a man and woman - given a situation of rape, we should allow that person to make the choice they want pertaining to the DNA in her body remains her choice not a state or federal body.
hibby76Feb 7, 2012
The Mom's DNA and the babies body have different DNA. It's not the Mom's DNA and it's not the Mom's body.
ano233Feb 7, 2012
In the minds of most Pro-Life people they are "protecting individual liberties" in their own twisted little way. By protecting the "right to live" of a lump of dividing cells that they imbue with an immortal soul. I agree that he is pandering a bit, he should defused the whole thing by just stating that he's "pro-life but the federal government has no right to meddle in something that is constitutionally a state issue". But as practically everyone knows, what republican would pass up the chance to get a few points with the religious base.
aces2mexicoFeb 7, 2012
a twisted way it is and most Repubs wouldn't pass the chance. I am going to stop holding Paul up to a different standard and expectation.
tsuruchibrianFeb 7, 2012
Abortion is not a libertarian issue.
Libertarianism is concerned with protection of rights of persons. It does not prescribe a definition of when personhood begins.
There are pro life libertarians and pro choice libertarians, and many nuanced libertarian positions in between.
Even the official Libertarian Party which has a more specific platform than libertarianism in general specifically states that it is neither pro life nor pro choice.
aces2mexicoFeb 8, 2012
Abortion is simply an issue. In this case, the girl that is raped should not be forced to mother the child. That's my position on the issue.
Democrats and Republicans vary on the issue. Reviewing the issue on the National level it all GOP nominees (including Paul) are overly socially conservative. In the end, I think Libertarians would majority wise support holding to the Roe v Wade ruling and support for having contraceptives covered in insurance.
I find it unfortunate. Hence, my post on this article and thoughts on Paul. He should leave it as a dead issue and focus on fiscal and military because he's not going to gather up more religious right voters than say Santorum. He could blast Santorum all day about his record in govt, which I hope he does.
tsuruchibrianFeb 8, 2012
My point is that it is not un-libertarian of Ron Paul to be pro-life.
His pro-life attitude is actually a religious point of view. Being religious does not exclude you from being a libertarian.
What I really wonder is why all of these self proclaimed religious democrats (every single federal elected representative except Pete Stark of California) is *not* pro-life.
Presumably the vast majority of these people believe in the idea of Jesus saving people's immortal souls. When do they think the souls enter the body?
I am an atheist. I don't believe in souls. I believe in science and turn to biology to answer questions related to abortion.
Until we have a more secular government, our only choices are:
1. true religious people with religiously deduced world views.
2. religious hypocrites (their world view does not reflect their religion)
3. religious imposters claiming to be religious for political gain.
As horrible as these choices are, for the time being I have to say for me choice #1 is the least repulsive.
At least Ron Paul is consistent in that he is a *true* pro-life person in that he also opposes the death penalty, and is anti-war. He values what he considers human life even if the human is Iranian, unborn, a murderer, etc. He is not a typical Republican, and I think it is not fair to frame him as such.
aces2mexicoFeb 8, 2012
Suppose its unfair to group him with Libertarians, considering his run within their ranks. I'll give you Paul is a bird of a different feather in the GOP field - aside from social conservative. Also, he is consistent with human life in some forms, except when it comes to helping the poor with govt programs.
I didn't realize there was a good number of Libertarians that imposed their religious world view into law, figured they left it to the individual choice.
As for religious democrats - its clear they stand for choice and not to impose their religion on the state & individual. They keep their church and state separate as it should be.
I'm not so sure about your three choices - politicians are politicians. Depending on their social stances you can get an idea how they would lead a group of people or themselves like to be treated.
in the end, if someone raped my sister, I'd hope my community would let her make the choice. In the end its her responsibility to raise the child.
tsuruchibrianFeb 8, 2012
@aces2mexico
Actually Ron Paul for the most part doesn't want to impose his religious views on others.
He is opposed to constitutional amendments and federal laws both forbidding and legalizing abortion in the states. I would argue that the federal government *should* be involved in deciding when a unborn human becomes a person, but Ron Paul doesn't.
He would be opposed to both the Federal government forcing alabama to allow abortions as much as he would be opposed to the federal government forcing california to criminalize them.
So I really don;t see how this could count as imposing his religious beliefs on people. I see this as the exact opposite.
Furthermore, it is not against libertarian philosophy to use government force to impose a world view on people. Libertarians believe in rights. Rights need to be protected by the government. This is itself a worldview that is imposed on everybody by use of government choice. People are not afforded the "choice" to opt out of punishment for violating the rights of other people, even in a libertarian society.
In fact this is precisely *why* Ron Paul is personally opposed to abortion. He believes the fetus is a person (because of his religion), and that it's rights need to be protected, a *very* libertarian position given the premise.
Would religious democrats support decriminalizing murder in the theme of keeping religious morality (thou shall not kill) out of the law? Of course not. Both pro life and pro choice people are opposed to murder (especially of young children). The only difference is that pro life people usually grant personhood at conception and pro choice people grant personhood at some later date (e.g. birth). Both times are equally arbitrary.
But that is the real issue when it comes to abortion. When does a clump of human tissue become a person?
If you are not religious, it is easy to say this is simply a gray area and there is no clear moment when this happens.
If you are religious, you presumably think the soul grants personhood, and the question becomes when the soul enters the body. The fact that religious democrats sidestep this issue in my mind makes them either category #2 or category #3 christians, which I just can't respect at all. At least Ron Paul is consistent.
"in the end, if someone raped my sister, I'd hope my community would let her make the choice. In the end its her responsibility to raise the child."
What if your sister had a 1 week old child, and it was discovered that the child, who's father she thought was her husband, turned out to be the result of a rape she had suffered while unconscious. Should she be allowed to kill the 1 week old child that was a product of rape? Should this choice be hers? Why or why not?
tsuruchibrianFeb 8, 2012
@aces2mexico
To better illustrate my point, imagine a libertarian animal rights activist who believes animals are deserving of the same rights as humans, effectively categorizing them as persons (which is the position many animal rights activists take).
This person would support government force to protect the rights of animals. The rationale for this becomes the same rationale for protecting humans' right to life by prosecuting murderers, and people who kill animals would be treated as murderers.
Someone might claim that this person is not in fact a libertarian because they don't support the right of humans to eat the flesh of animals, but this is not a fair criticism.
Under every conception of libertarianism, the right to life of persons trumps any right to kill other people.
Mostly everyone's views specifically on right to life are libertarian. The only difference between pro-life, pro-choice, extreme animal-rights, and carnivores is who/what gets counted as a person.
Their libertarian bona fides are unaffected by there position of how to define personhood. It only depends on their positions regarding the rights of the things they categorize as people.
lemurFeb 6, 2012
Ron Paul's opinions on issues like this are irrelevant. Why? He's a libertarian; his official stance is that the government has no business meddling in the private affairs of citizens. End of story.
So, Ron Paul doesn't want most mothers to abort their children? That's cool. Neither do I. Does Ron Paul want a government that forces his own personal vision morality on other Americans? No he doesn't, and neither do I.
Ron Paul can't succeed in American politics because he's both too intelligent and too honest.
inajeepFeb 6, 2012
Doesn't he want the issue decided at a state level? He still wants government involved, but at a smaller easier to fit version.
lemurFeb 6, 2012
Well yeah, from a practical standpoint, it's not even really possible for a society to exist without some sort of governance structure, but one could argue that a freer society doesn't come from a very strong federal government, but rather shows more local and democratic rule so that instead of a "one size fits all" mentality, different groups can moderate themselves in a way that makes the most sense for that particular group. It also enables more transparency and opportunity for personal participation. Also it provides choice and competition; you don't get locked into one set of rules with no way out.
Seeing as RP is running for federal office and is advocating power be transferred to the state, it's fairly clear that he personally is not looking to impose his particular moral or social values on the rest of the nation.
worthwildFeb 5, 2012
If we;d just start aborting the rapists we'd lower recidivism dramatiaclly.
doodlemasterFeb 6, 2012
I don't see what the big deal is.
I think it's pretty obvious by "Honest Rape" that if an abortion in response to a rape occurs and it was really rape (as opposed to someone just claiming it was rape even though it was actually consensual) he'd be okay with it.'
Come on use some critical thinking skills....
aristotle0dudeFeb 6, 2012
You are asking too much from a jingoist Democrat.
tehravenFeb 6, 2012
Ahhhh, turning even rape into a partisan issue~ Love it~
aristotle0dudeFeb 6, 2012
Fine, jingoist American. Happy now?
aces2mexicoFeb 8, 2012
He should just say it then rather than bumble on about it. Rick Santorum would rather the girl have baby, cut out the welfare, medical and food assistance on the young single mom and call it God's justice.
skywiseFeb 5, 2012
So it's only allowable in cases of "rape rape"?
(See Whoopi Goldberg)
rebulatorFeb 6, 2012
Piers Morgan has no idea what he's talking about here. It can take up to 3 days, sometimes a little longer, before the sperm reaches the ovum and conception happens. If you can prevent the conception, then you prevent the common definition of abortion.
I believe Ron Paul is trying to say that if you are raped, report it and get the preventative treatment. Coming in 7 months later claiming you were raped and trying to get the same treatment is a little different from that perspective, since conception already happened. I believe this is the difference between "honest rape" and the other situation. Anyone could come in 7 months into their pregnancy and ask for an abortion, if all they had to do was claim that they were raped.
This title is inflammatory, and intellectually dishonest. Shame on you geek22.
rickavoiceoverFeb 6, 2012
I was surprised that the length of time it takes the sperm to meet the egg and initiate conception was not clearly stated. The conversation almost made it sound like the argument was "sperm arrives, conception". Perhaps a result of editing that Paul would not further clarify this?
warrenaikemaFeb 5, 2012
He shouldn't have used the word "honest" in describing rape, but I have no problem with his stance on what should be done. I am a bit confused why everyone is in an uproar. I understand why people are defending the fact that when you are raped, you are raped and we should never protect the abuser and turn the victim into a victim all over again, but Paul's answer is to me common sense approach to a very difficult issue. I think people are blinded by their own personal agenda and can't see the forest through the trees. There are people who claim to be raped that are not, BUT i don't believe it was relevant in this particular question and didn't need to be part of Paul's answer.
anticircleFeb 5, 2012
the only thing that should matter is that this is only his opinion. his political stance on ALL of these subjects is that the federal government shouldn't have the power to tell us what we can or cannot do. those is an issue for individual states to decide where you have more direct control of the voting senators and congressmen. As an OBGYN i can see where his point of view come from, however if you look at his voting history and listen to his speeches you would be able to see that he has no intention on taking his opinion and trying to make a federal law out of it
FrankLuskaFeb 5, 2012
WOW, the most intelligent response here, Thanks. Too many people just don't get it.
navarre1963Feb 5, 2012
I like Ron Paul, of the Republican candidates running I think he's the least likely to push us into an unfounded war (ala Bush), start a holy war against the gay/lesbian community (ala Santorum), bankrupt the country while protecting his millionaire friends (ala Romney)
or drop the bomb on Iran (ala Gringrich). That said, I'm very disappointed with his comments on CNN. I had friends who were raped, and his "honest rape" statement is
a slap in their face.
nerysFeb 5, 2012
so never heard of someone being "accused" of rape when they did no such thing ehh? how about someone just "CLAIMING" oh I was raped 7 months ago because they want an "easy out" from the responsibility of that baby?
can't happen? have YOU LOOKED at the population of this country and its devolving lack of basic intelligence and responsibility?
There is nothing wrong with his position but I do agree the words "honest rape" were a very bad choice of words in the context of this interview.
samthurstonFeb 6, 2012
"devolving lack of basic intelligence"
That's a winning combination of words right there.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
sad but true. you need only look around.
publiclurkerFeb 6, 2012
Like in a mirror.
mikoniumFeb 6, 2012
Why would they lie to the doctor about being raped, though? Rape is not a requirement for an abortion, so it's not like they need to lie to get an "easy out." Especially telling a lie that carries, what many believe, to be a negative social stigma.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
the point is if the LAW is changed so you can not have an abortion at say 5 months unless you have been raped they will just "cry rape"
hibby76Feb 6, 2012
To save face.
To hurt someone.
To get revenge.
To "take the high ground".
To pose as a victim.
To pass responsibility.
.......etc.
tehravenFeb 6, 2012
Yeaaaaaaaa but then it's not "dishonest rape" it's just "not rape"
nerysFeb 6, 2012
but unless you KNOW its dishonest its called "rape"
this is what he meant by honest rape. again it was a VERY bad choice of words
r0g3rFeb 6, 2012
I like Ron Paul too, he's seems like a truly genuine guy among politicians. Very rare indeed. He's just a little to "out there" for me to every support him for the presidency. He makes a great counter balance to a lot of the republican nonsense in congress though. That's where he belongs.
theforeignwifeFeb 5, 2012
I had no idea there were types of rape - besides 'honest rape' what pray tell are the others? In fact, didn't even know rape was 'honest' - looking forward to the definitions
FrankLuskaFeb 5, 2012
From you previous comments, you most likely would not be able to comprehend the answer.
particleman420Feb 5, 2012
it's a good thing you were able to clear it up or explain it.
but judging by your previous posts, you would most likely not be able to.
octorussFeb 6, 2012
Hi FrankLuska, How are you. I would like to meet you. I am theforeignwife's husband. Please send me your contact information.
leonard2Feb 5, 2012
Do you enjoy acting like a moron?
publiclurkerFeb 6, 2012
He's just trying to act like someone you can relate to. unfortunately, someone can only stoop so low in their attempt to get down to your level.
narcmavFeb 5, 2012
You should have an idea..when you were caught by your husband with another man, that was not considered honest rape...
octorussFeb 6, 2012
Hi narcmav, This is Theforeignwife's husband. I would very much like to meet you. Please send me your contact information.
narcmavFeb 6, 2012
Hi octoruss, this is I, I am not into that kinda stuff. No thank you.
octorussFeb 6, 2012
My hobby is fundraising for the wounded warrior project. I support service members who fight for our country & preserve our liberties including the right to free speech. I believe it's important to debate difficult topics such as abortion in the instance of rape. Personal attacks aren't required to effectively debate the many valid points on both sides of the issue. There's nothing funny about rape. Rape is a difficult subject for all involved no matter who the victim is.
Ron Paul believes there are circumstances that make abortion more or less acceptable. I believe there are no circumstances that make an inaccurate personal attack on the internet acceptable.
narcmavFeb 7, 2012
Don't really care about your hobby because it has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Your wifey opened her big mouth and decided to mock RP, so I mocked the hell out of her ass. One of the few men actually working to preserve our liberties is Ron Paul himself. You're right though, personal attacks aren't required to effectively debate, and I made nothing personal. Also ain't nobody sayin rape is funny, however there is such a thing as women out there claiming to be raped and have not been. End of story. You can head on back where ya came from on that high horse ya came in on.
nerysFeb 5, 2012
First lets agree his word selection (regardless of motive or intent) where VERY poorly chosen. lets put that aside for a moment.
There are MANY "types" of rape (most of them are NOT rape but they get DEFINED as rape anyway)
how about a 19 year old having sex with his 2 year long 16 year old girlfriend? Fully Consenting mind you. or worse a girlfriend who lied about her age ? do you check ID and verify its not fake when you have sex?
In many places this is Statutory Rape. The states position is the consent of the 16yo is invalid so its automatically rape. (yet they have NO problem selectively charging under 18s as adults when it suits them too) So if they commit murder they ARE capable of making their own decisions and we can charge them as adults but if its just sex OH no they are not capable of making that decision so its rape.
How about a woman "cries" rape when it was consenting. Good luck defending yourself as the man. (happens a lot more often than you think and DESTROYS the life of the guy too)
How about when a woman cries rape when she does not want to have the child decides she does not want the responsibility any longer. Honey we can't have this baby too much work too much money WHATEVER reason. I will goto the police tell them 7 months ago I was raped and ashamed to say anything so we can abort it. (do you honestly think that won't happen? OFTEN ?)
I am all for mother's choice. SHE was first HER life is more important but if her life is not in danger. ?? does simply not wanting it justify murder? No one should EVER be forced to bear a child that was not their choice. EVER. but where do you draw the line? how do you prevent abuse and murder as a result of such a position?
this is what he means by "honest rape" rape has been so distorted and abused that YES there is "honest rape" but that is a VERY bad choice of words.
and he is not so eloquent at describing his position clearly. (it IS in fact a complicated issue)
samthurstonFeb 6, 2012
"How about a woman "cries" rape when it was consenting. Good luck defending yourself as the man. (happens a lot more often than you think"
Share with us, please, some statistics on this.
Personally, I think the wikipedia entry is pretty comprehensive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#False_reporting
nerysFeb 6, 2012
tell that to the guy falsely accused. sorry bud you get no rights because there are not many of you. oh well.
Point stands also that if we allow no restrictions effectively on abortion the wolf cries will GO UP as false claims of rape to "get out" of pregnancy go up. at least in that case their should be no victims unless you count the baby.
samthurstonFeb 6, 2012
"sorry bud you get no rights because there are not many of you."
Where did I suggest that they should get no rights?
You said it happened a lot more than I would think. I think the much more common scenario is the guilty rapist getting away with it, either because it doesn't get reported or due to lack of evidence.
But then again, I don't watch a lot of CSI.
"Point stands also that if we allow no restrictions effectively on abortion the wolf cries will GO UP"
Unless you just allow, as the law stands, women to terminate pregnancies as they see fit. Then there's no need for "wolf cries."
nerysFeb 6, 2012
You implied the rights of the woman are superior to the rights of the man. its an either or in most cases. This is why guys getting accused have their lives DESTROYED because 10 years from then people DO NOT REMEMBER the acquittal they remember the ACCUSATION and that is enough.
tehravenFeb 6, 2012
yeaaaaaaa unfortunately not every false report gets ousted soooo those stats aren't really all that great.
samthurstonFeb 6, 2012
I take it you didn't read the link
tehravenFeb 6, 2012
"How about a woman "cries" rape when it was consenting. Good luck defending yourself as the man. (happens a lot more often than you think"
"How about when a woman cries rape when she does not want to have the child decides she does not want the responsibility any longer."
I think that's "not rape" not a type of rape . . . So what i got from this post was statutory rape, rape, consensual sex. But I get what you're sayin!
nerysFeb 6, 2012
but they get called rape unless you can prove otherwise. this is what he meant by HONEST RAPE. (again bad choice of words) he meant RAPE that was actually rape not rape that was "called" rape but really was not.
tehravenFeb 9, 2012
THE WORST THING to read out loud in public EVERRRRRR!
hibby76Feb 6, 2012
18 year old sleeping with a 17 year old boyfriend. The police and/or parents could press rape charges against the "adult" boyfriend, but it's hardly rape.
Similarly, teens who get pregnant and are later convinced by others (friends, family, police, etc) that they were raped when in reality they were willing participants.
Woman gets pregnant. Breaks up with Boyfriend. She decides that she's going to "make him pay" and declares that he raped her.
None of the above are "honest rapes" as RP puts it.
icwydFeb 5, 2012
What is "Dishonest Rape"? Where did this stupidity come from? Why is he using weasel words? What is he hiding?
Schweppesale2Feb 5, 2012
I should ask you the same.
shingoexFeb 5, 2012
I sincerely hope you aren't as stupid as your post suggests.
particleman420Feb 5, 2012
he's trying to hide the fact that he says he's all about government non-intervention and the freedom for people to be able to choose and do what they want while at the same time supporting and voting for the opposite.
just like the rest of the republicans in the party he's a member of.
FrankLuskaFeb 5, 2012
Too bad you can't prove that from looking at his voting record. I guess that makes you wrong again.
particleman420Feb 5, 2012
he sure says enough contradictory things that i dont need to look at his record.
but....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act
eraptorFeb 5, 2012
@Frank,
We judge Ron Paul's positions in accordance with his rhetoric AND voting record. Particleman420 is correct to point out Dr. Paul's hypocritical position of opposing ALL government intervention while carving out a hypocritical exception for abortion.
While I tend to oppose some late-term abortions as he does (i.e., those which do NOT threaten a mother's life), most of the country supports a woman's right to make their own healthcare decisions. Adoption serves is a more humane, appropriate means of handling unwanted late-term pregnancies. This does not mean pro-choice advocates "endorse" abortion as Dr. Paul misrepresents, it means pro-choice advocates endorse a woman's right to make their own responsible healthcare decisions.
By the way, "responsibility" is based upon standards society defines as appropriate behavior, NOT what radical conservative ideologues believe.
slearwigFeb 5, 2012
Wrong. The responsibility is the Right of the First Person, not determined by society, as are All of Our Rights, of which none of the pro-lifers are about.
Inalienable Rights are not invalidated by the beliefs of others or by Our Government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorFeb 5, 2012
Let's test that theory...
We all have an inalienable right to freedom. Correct?
Then by your standard, if a person kills someone else (i.e., irresponsible behavior), society has no right to deprive them of that "right" to freedom. Correct?
Wrong! Society determines which behavior is "protected" and which behavior is NOT.
It's the foundation of our justice system.
anub1sFeb 6, 2012
Inalienable rights don't exist. ALL of your rights are afforded you by the society in which you live. Your current rights are determined by some words written on parchment over 200 years ago, and are continually revisited by the current government. You have no rights afforded you for just being alive, for in order to have this you have to have objective rule, of which there is none.
You're only just barely scratching the surface of philosolphy and you're already plunging into fallacy.
slearwigFeb 6, 2012
eraptor, you attempt the emotional defense of tyrants who defend fascism, by ignoring the fact that we are all First Persons with equal Rights, therefore murder of an existent person is an offense of that person's Rights. A murderer trespasses as a third party against the Right of the first person.
And anub1s, by the 9th Amendment, yes my Inalienable Rights are secured, and if anyone tries to invade my privacy to deprive me of them, then I have the 2nd Amendment and the Right to uphold and defend Liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
If that fails, I will ignore you.
nerysFeb 5, 2012
he opposses UNCONSTITUTIONAL government intervention. please get that fact straight.
he opposes any legislation that is not inline with the CONSTITUTION.
he is not against "government intervention" just UNLAWFUL government intervention.
I understand how this can appear consuming to most regular people since probably 90% or more of what the government does is by definition unlawful.
eraptorFeb 5, 2012
I understand what you and Dr. Paul are saying, I simply disagree with the narrow interpretation of what the Constitution represents to both of you.
While I stand by the core intent of the Constitution, applying Revolutionary-era standards of society to modern times is illogical. The Founding Father's understood this concept as much as I do.
I'm not suggesting we change that original intent as many Conservatives are prone to do for ideological and commercial purposes, simply that we adhere to the spirit of what the Founding Father's intended rather than the VERY narrow Fundamentalist interpretation some bring to it.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
so where does this abortion issue appear in the constitution, if we're going to be literalistic.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
It does not. which by definition makes it a NON FEDERAL ISSUE.
Lets be clear. The constitution grants you no rights. the constitution is a contract that outlines the SPECIFIC EXPLICIT duties of government and some of what it is NOT permitted to do.
Second the constitution is EXPLICIT. not implicit.
this means while the constitution grants the government powers it ONLY grants them the SPECIFIC POWER listed in it. nothing more. nothing implied.
SO if a power is not explicitly covered by a provision in the constitution it is legally OUTSIDE THE PERVUE of the federal government.
its really that simple. to put it simple.
unless the constitutions explicitly says the federal government can do something then IT CAN NOT DO IT LAWFULLY.
You have no right or authority to "interpret" anything. the constitution is EXPLICIT (not up for interpretation) versus IMPLICIT (up for interpretation)
CONTRARY to popular belief and common abuse the Supreme Court is NOT LAWFULLY permitted to interpret the constitution.
its job is to INTERPRET THE ISSUE AT HAND and then "APPLY" the constitution to it or not.
if you were allowed to "interpret" the constitution it would have absolutely ZERO VALUE since you could simply INTERPRET it as ANYTHING YOU WANTED (which is exactly what we are doing)
There is only supposed to be ONE WAY to "interpret" or "change" the constitution and that is with a constitutional amendment.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
kind of like how slavery isnt mentioned but is now federally illegal, or how alcohol wasnt banned, then was, then wasnt?
nerysFeb 6, 2012
and WOW isn't it amazing but they actually FOLLOWED THE LAW when they banished some types of slavery and banned and repealed alcohol.
WITH AN AMENDMENT. wow what do you know the process WORKS.
Schweppesale2Feb 6, 2012
"kind of like how slavery isnt mentioned but is now federally illegal, or how alcohol wasnt banned, then was, then wasnt?"
-particleman
Actually, the 13th Amendment prohibits slavery in the US
nerysFeb 6, 2012
well not all slavery. I mean indentured servitude is slavery and yet we have involuntary indentured servitude for every person in this country earning a wage.
Go figure.
chadpyleFeb 6, 2012
It depends on when a fetus becomes a human. Once it's a human, it is covered by natural, inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What RP suggests, is that those rights have to extend to all human life or we risk encroaching upon the unborn child's liberties; thereby, regressing as a civilization.
So, when does a fetus become a human?
nerysFeb 5, 2012
but the government IS supposed to protect rights and all human beings (even babies) have rights. So that is a valid place for government.
I don't have a real problem with RP's position on abortion I have a problem with his presentation. he needs to sit the hell down and SORT OUT HIS WORDING to explain himself to people.
they are asking a VERY complicated question that requires a complicated answer but they want a SIMPLE answer. they want a polar yes no answer and its simply NOT THAT SIMPLE.
but RP is also VERY bad at explaining himself. he needs to work on that. his lack of clarity makes him come off that way. he needs to work on that.
His basic position is if you have just been raped technically by all science NO LIFE exists yet. its in limbo at most its a fertilized egg and even that might not come to a full blown new lifeform.
so he is saying if your in this limbo period he has no problem with "PREVENTING" it from ever becoming a life.
this is no different than you ELECTING to not have sex to "PREVENT" the life from being created. so its morally ok.
its a whole nother story to have a 7month old child a true honest life inside you and want to kill it because its inconvenient ??Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorFeb 5, 2012
Watch that interview again. Dr. Paul clearly stated that he believes "life begins at conception" (i.e., egg fertilization). This is consistent with far right conservative views, but inconsistent with the individual freedom he claims to fight for.
One can't claim to represent complete freedom from government intervention, then interject themselves into a woman's life the moment she decides to consider a healthcare procedure they disagree with. This inconsistency is hypocritical.
As I indicated earlier, I favor giving women more freedom than Dr. Paul does, but agree that there should be strict limits on late-term pregnancies. My position on this issue is based upon the developmental stages of a fertilized egg, not the point of fertilization (which most Conservatives favor).
nerysFeb 6, 2012
Oh really. He said conception is egg fertilization? I must have missed that part.
and WHEN DOES Egg Fert happen exactly?
he NEVER claims to represent complete freedom from government intervention. Your arguments are 100% null and void so long as you stick to that thought.
he claims to represent a lawfully limited government that OBEYS THE DAMNED LAW (Constitution)
eraptorFeb 6, 2012
Don't take my word for what Dr. Paul said, watch the interview.
How old are you? When does egg fertilization occur? Take a sex ed. class!
As for Dr. Paul and you, you're free to believe whatever you want EVEN when you're wrong. However, the freedom of your beliefs END the moment you attempt to impose them on the majority of us.
Thank the Founding Father's for THAT Democratic political reality...
nerysFeb 6, 2012
still waiting. When does it occur
1 minute after sex. an hour? a day? a week?
truthroxFeb 6, 2012
Fertilization occurs the moment a sperm pierces the ovum (aka egg).
Fertilization is a single biological event, not a matter of time. Once fertilized, an embryo develops over time.
Dr. Paul drew the abortion line at fertilization (aka conception), eraptor draws the abortion line much later in the embryo development process.
eraptorFeb 6, 2012
@nerys,
The answer to your conception question varies based upon several biological factors. Again, either consider taking a sex ed. class or Google the topic. There's ample material available on the subject.
See truthrox' response above as they appear to have summarized the fertilization process and our debate pretty succinctly.
davey914Feb 5, 2012
Ron "Foot in mouth" Paul.
FrankLuskaFeb 5, 2012
Better than head up the butt.
leonard2Feb 5, 2012
I wonder...How did davey914 get his head up his butt with his foot in his mouth? I guess liberals do have their talents.
FrankLuskaFeb 5, 2012
Some people are very talented in certain ways :-)
nerysFeb 5, 2012
agreed partially. his flaw is not in his position (which is sound) his flaw is in his lack of ability to "get the idea across" clearly to people.
cowicideFeb 5, 2012
Ron Paul is still traumatized from his dishonest rape via Brüno.
FrankLuskaFeb 5, 2012
Excellent remark from a 5th grader.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
excellent comment from someone that doesnt understand what he's replying to but not having the brains to realize it or not to do it.
ghostrunner1Feb 6, 2012
It's ok to admit when you don't get the joke.
rebulatorFeb 6, 2012
I believe by honest rape, he meant real rape and not falsely reported rape. Poor wording, but give the guy a break. He's being forthright with you.
ghostrunner1Feb 6, 2012
If that is so, how does one determine the difference?
chadpyleFeb 6, 2012
I believe he was referring to women who wait until late term to declare their pregnancy a product of rape and initiate an abortion. He explains in the interview that he accepts hormonal treatments immediately after rape to terminate a potential pregnancy. Ultimately, his personal beliefs wouldn't be a factor, since he would return the debate to the states, where legislation will better reflect the wishes of the local populace.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
icwydFeb 6, 2012
No it won't. The local governments will be swayed by the rich.
chadpyleFeb 7, 2012
The federal government is already controlled by far more insidious special interests. It is exponentially easier to control corruption on a state level.
icwydFeb 7, 2012
Where is your evidence? I would like to see facts not fairy tales.
chadpyleFeb 7, 2012
Most of the answers you seek can be found here: google.com
Enlightenment is the individual's responsibility. Honing your critical thinking skills is a rewarding experience, I assure you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
icwydFeb 7, 2012
I don't need google. I have a memory of real events and reality.
California vote on gay marriage. It was completely
subverted by the moron church.
Check!
roguegeniusFeb 10, 2012
The sad thing about Paul is... he's not hiding anything. When you adopt a 'ism' with the fanatical furor he has, anything that counters is, even logic and reality, are just wrong in your mind.
This is why people believe in nonsense like virgin births and talking snakes.
ferretmanFeb 5, 2012
Wow...didn't really see that one coming.
starmanjonesFeb 5, 2012
my exact thought. republicans are just so far removed from reality... even if he did believe that he should know to keep it to himself. but he doesn't. same sort of thing romney has been doing.
nerysFeb 5, 2012
I will take honesty every time.
starmanjonesFeb 6, 2012
when you're talking rape blaming the victim is never going to be reasonable.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
you assume your talking about rape.
if someone cries rape and no rape occurred who is the victim.?
starmanjonesFeb 6, 2012
the victim is the person that was raped. ron paul isn't involved.
Schweppesale2Feb 6, 2012
"if someone cries rape and no rape occurred who is the victim.?"
-nerys
"the victim is the person that was raped. ron paul isn't involved."
-starmanjones
-----------
Someone is having trouble keeping up.
tehravenFeb 6, 2012
wow starmanjones . . . wow . . .
rebulatorFeb 6, 2012
Who says this is blaming the victim?
Saying "you were asking for it dressed like that" is blaming the victim. Saying "you can't have preventative treatment because it's too late" is not blaming the victim, it's informing the individual that a window of opportunity has closed.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
oh man when I hear but look how she was dressed it just makes me realizes how devolved some of our population is. make me sick to be associated in the same species as that kind of person.
starmanjonesFeb 6, 2012
thats nuts. you're using semantics to obfuscate the fact you're blaming the victim.
you are also pretending that there is a way women can dress that invites violence. like a gazelle walking across the serengeti where lions are sitting.
it doesn't matter what a woman is wearing because its about a violent guy doing violence to a woman.
but thats not all -ron paul wants to be the one that decides if its ok to have an abortion. "sorry its too late. i had to play golf yesterday."
that is strictly a subjective decision. does it matter if she is 15 or 20 or 25? what exactly constitutes a threat to the rape victims health beyond having bee raped.
its not difficult to see how it would effect her mental health. its not difficult to see how having to quit school and loose a lifetimes opportunities effects her health.
ron paul... or you... or any of your anti abortion pro rapist rights guys should have no say.
if you've been around women that have been raped and seen what they go through you'd see just how disgusting your arguments are. if you'd seen what PTSD does to a woman then you'd know. you are arguing a case that virtually never happens.
chadpyleFeb 7, 2012
I've never heard RP blame a victim of rape.
starmanjonesFeb 7, 2012
but he did give you a glimpse into the way he thinks about it. "honest rape"
you can tell people that have a prejudice and people that have never been close to a rape victim.
typically the prejudice starts with the police who make the victim feel like they have done something wrong. its a nasty cold process to gather the evidence... not much better than the rape especially when done by doctors that want to find out if it was an "honest rape."
then for most women there are years of PTSD that they hide. i've had friends that had a silent smiling panic attack when guys sat on the same couch with her. thats the norm. over time she became suicidal... she ask her boy friend to take her to the emergency room and he refused because it would be embarrassing. he wondered if it was an "honest rape."
her friends kept her alive... with constant surveillance. this is the sad state of affairs that rape victims live through. the other sad state of affairs is that by the age of 18 25% of your moms and sisters and cousins have been sexually assaulted.
anyone that wants to ignore whats happening then you are very very small and pathetic.
starmanjonesFeb 7, 2012
you prolly didn't deserve all that for that comment. but you can't be around rape victims without getting really angry at "guys are victims too."
nerysFeb 9, 2012
actually its an actual FACT that more men are raped every year than women.
GO check out the justice departments data.
in fact more actual men are raped every year in our prison system than "ALL" rapes combined outside prison.
and do you know what these guys are told?
Fight or f**k.
yeah no joke. that is what the authorities tell them.
icwydFeb 5, 2012
I did.
theforeignwifeFeb 5, 2012
I had no idea there were types of rape - besides 'honest rape' what pray tell are the others? In fact, didn't even know rape was 'honest' - looking forward to the definitions
Schweppesale2Feb 5, 2012
He's referring to women who lie about being raped.
theforeignwifeFeb 5, 2012
Oh - is that what he told you? I thought he was referring to an instance where the rapist says the woman is lying and he is found innocent and the rapist's father also happens to be a senator. Thanks for clearing that up.
Schweppesale2Feb 5, 2012
???
FrankLuskaFeb 5, 2012
Comprehension courses are available on the internet, start with the 1st grade level so you make sure to get it all.
narcmavFeb 5, 2012
If the woman was lying, there wouldn't be a rapist. Sorta like when your husband caught you in bed with another man and you said he was "raping" you hahahahaha.
octorussFeb 6, 2012
Narcmav do you know FrankLuska and Schweppesale2? I would like to meet all three of you. What are your hobbies?
narcmavFeb 6, 2012
Scotch..Poetry..and my dog Baxter.
tehravenFeb 6, 2012
ROFL! You really think you're doing anything other than looking like an idiot? You seriously taking a macho stance . . . on the internet? Or is this some joke that went over my head?
octorussFeb 6, 2012
My hobby is fundraising for the wounded warrior project. I support service members who fight for our country & preserve our liberties including the right to free speech. I believe it's important to debate difficult topics such as abortion in the instance of rape. Personal attacks aren't required to effectively debate the many valid points on both sides of the issue. There's nothing funny about rape. Rape is a difficult subject for all involved no matter who the victim is.
Ron Paul believes there are circumstances that make abortion more or less acceptable. I believe there are no circumstances that make an inaccurate personal attack on the internet acceptable.
chadpyleFeb 7, 2012
Sadly, false charges of rape have become increasingly common, which demeans legitimate victims.
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
You know what? If women are only allowed to have an abortion if they have been raped, you will find that many women will claim to have been raped - sending thousands of innocent men potentially to prison. Is THAT what you want?
Schweppesale2Feb 5, 2012
Hence the honest rape comment which people are "struggling" to understand.
roguegeniusFeb 6, 2012
I understood it, I just think it's bulls**t. The assumption here is there are women out their just mooning to cry rape. To think that you have to be the same type who think people are just mooning to get on welfare. Neither are true in significant digits.
Schweppesale2Feb 5, 2012
Btw, if the woman wasn't actually raped then that means it was consensual. That's two adults making an adult decision to get it on.
Now, how hard is it to use/acquire contraception now ad days?
Also, are you implying that there are no states which have already legalized abortion?
I'm sorry dude, I just don't see any cause for all this hysteria about Ron Paul and his personal views.
They don't seem "extreme" by any stretch of the imagination.
All the other GOP candidates would rather take away women's right to choose by ramming federal legislation down our throats.
Then you have guys like Santorum who think abortion is wrong even in the case of rape.
Ron Paul is the voice of reason among conservatives.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
Believe it or not, some people actually have sex for fun. I know, it is a weird concept. And in the heat of the moment, condoms DO slip off - it has happened to me, so it can happen to others.
And, I am not American and do no know all your state laws. But anyone defending the right to be the boss over someone elses body is a f**king control freak.
FrankLuskaFeb 5, 2012
As opposed to being able to control oneself and the conditions around them.
Yes, people actually do have have sex for fun, as a matter of fact, most do. Hence the quote
"That's two adults making an adult decision to get it on."
Don't get me wrong, on this point, i am much more Libertarian than Paul. The Government should keep it's nose out of it, unless a true and just law has been broken.
If two people make a baby and can not afford it, I will be penalized by the government, to provide services for this child, which is what happens most in America.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tehravenFeb 6, 2012
[insert joke about penis size]
tehravenFeb 6, 2012
I dont think every woman having an abortion is some promiscuous chick . . . and I hope women aren't willing to send their loved ones to prison just to have an abortion . . . But I see what you're sayin.
roguegeniusFeb 6, 2012
Which rarely happens outside of daytime white trash tv.
Schweppesale2Feb 6, 2012
"FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%"
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
If you do a quick Google search and you'll see that the number actually fluctuates between 2-10%.
People are f*ked up.
roguegeniusFeb 6, 2012
While I agree with your last statement, think about what you are saying. For the sake of less than 1 in 10, you want to hamstring the legal system. That's 9 'honest' rapists walking free on the same streets as your mother, your wife, your daughters.
narcmavFeb 7, 2012
Way over your head.
satori3000Feb 5, 2012
That is hilarious, so essentially he's taking the "if a tree falls in a forest' defence... so if a shot of estrogen is given the day after a rape no one knows if a baby is there or not so it's ok... Just come out for or against it, don't give some philosophical explanation of how you could get around your own personal moral ambiguity.
jphrFeb 5, 2012
So we make the morning-after pill simply part of the daily routine. Hilarious indeed.
rebulatorFeb 6, 2012
It may sound ridiculous, but if you knew how the morning-after pill worked, and the time table on conception, it no longer seems that ridiculous.
Of course, I'd be concerned about long-term side effects and wouldn't recommend it.
chadpyleFeb 7, 2012
Such a regimen was never recommended by RP. Only an irresponsible lifestyle would require such a thing.
nerysFeb 5, 2012
its not that easy. he is hiding in the GREY to support the woman's right to not have a child she did not ask for.
it not a black and white issue. PERIOD. but people TRY TO MAKE IT a black and white issue and this is what happens when you do.
satori3000Feb 6, 2012
I believe you'll find that most people who believe that life starts at conception are religious, and I further believe you'll find that those are the people that see this as a black and white issue.
rebulatorFeb 6, 2012
That is likely true. If I were in such an ambiguously grey situation, I would prefer to err on the side of life as opposed to risking the killing of a non-fully developed person.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
This is strictly my personal opinion. but to me once it has a brain it has rights. if it does not have a brain yet then it should be 100% mothers choice.
Once it has a brain the mother should have "less" choice (just like she can not "kill" her 3yo for any old reason)
100% of the time if it endangers the mother directly abortion should always be permitted.
tehravenFeb 6, 2012
*sob* that was beautiful . . . Finally someone who gets that the brain is what makes us human . . .
rebulatorFeb 6, 2012
I agree on that last part. If the mother's life is endangered it is no longer about taking life, but saving it. Although I think it should still ultimately be up to the mother.
satori3000Feb 6, 2012
@nerys I would agree with the idea of a brain, but what constitutes a brain? certain cells could be brain cells without having any brain activity. Again, it's a grey that I'm just not sure how to classify. Is anyone a wiz with bio that can better define this?
nerysFeb 6, 2012
well that would be up for society to decide. I am not a doctor or a lawyer.
but personally BRAIN = Sentient Life to me and that means RIGHTS apply.
"whatever that point is" codify that into law. that simple.
chadpyleFeb 7, 2012
I am tentatively of the opinion that a fetus attains its natural human rights when it can maintain primary bodily function, unassisted. Thoughts?
nerysFeb 7, 2012
so a full grown adult that can not maintain its primary bodily functions unassisted has no rights?
what about retarted or handicapped children and adults?
chadpyleFeb 7, 2012
During the first several days after copulation, there's no way to verify a pregnancy; it's not a matter of intentional ignorance. It seems to me that RP has provided an unusually pragmatic paradigm for a decidedly complex issue.
brsox2445Feb 5, 2012
If any situation merits abortion, then how can anyone justify denying abortion in other situations? I guess it is unjustifiable murder unless the woman didn't consent. But if she consented then it becomes murder. This conflict makes no sense to me.
debasisgFeb 5, 2012
Honesty is defined by who the victim is. If the victim is white and may be a republican, then it is alright. Too bad otherwise.
Schweppesale2Feb 8, 2012
I find it sad that you received 13 diggs for this comment.
NoGodzFeb 5, 2012
Watch the Paulophiles rush to his defense, twisting and turning to explain what he REALLY meant. Fact is, Ron Paul is bat-s**t crazy. Time to admit it.
Schweppesale2Feb 5, 2012
I don't see any need to "rush to his defense".
The guy has always opposed abortion as an act of violence; yet here we have him admitting that in the case of rape - a woman may want to go get an abortion.
He's being reasonable.
What is there to defend?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaFeb 5, 2012
The children has spoken, "bat-s**t crazy", excellent, this statement makes you look truly intelligent.
You may not agree, just say so, no reason to act like a child.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsFeb 5, 2012
"has spoken" really?
NoGodzFeb 6, 2012
Coming from a grammatically-challenged individual such as yourself, that means a lot to me.
leonard2Feb 5, 2012
When did RP become a liberal?
roguegeniusFeb 6, 2012
He seems to be all about imposing his beliefs on everyone else. Seems typically right wing to me.
leonard2Feb 6, 2012
Bat s**t crazy is a liberal trait.
scottkeefeFeb 5, 2012
When will the American populace understand that the President doesn't make laws and in this particular case can have no power over the law since it was made by the Supreme Court's decision in Roe Vs. Wade.
If you are worried about laws, including abortion, worry about your Congress which somehow gets elected and has a 17% approval rating. How many of you very vocal people voted the last time your Congress people were up for election? Do you even know when to go vote for that or is the presidency the only thing you have time for?
Ron Paul is a libertarian and this was an opinion. He always comes down on the side of personal liberty unlike ANY of the other candidates republican or democrat. So much freaking propaganda and lack of understanding of our government; Its just mind-bending...
linuxpersonFeb 5, 2012
Very interesting interview that really highlights the contention with the abortion debate.
I don't think Paul is being consistent in his belief here. In his book Liberty Defined he made it very clear that he believes life begins at conception which I do tend to agree with. That being said, he went on to label abortion, even early term abortion as murder.
If that is the case, how is abortion not murder in the case of rape? This is why I say he is being inconsistent. If abortion is murder because it represents taking a life, then ALL abortion is murder.
To me, we all as individuals own our bodies. That means a pregnant woman is well within her rights to receive an abortion because she could decide, at any moment, that she no longer wishes to have a child inside her. Obviously this belief gets questionable the further along a woman is in her pregnancy which is why I am highly conflicted on this issue.
Ultimately I don't condone abortion on a personal level unless it is in cases of actual real rape and incest. I'd much rather see woman who don't want to have a child become incentivized somehow to do so.
jefftsFeb 5, 2012
That's basically how I see abortion. Morally, I believe it is wrong but I also believe that the woman owns her body and has the right to choose. I feel, personally, that it should only be reserved for cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger.
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
However, it is NOT your choice - it is the woman's, and the woman's alone. You seem to think that if a kid gets born it will be cared for - well, have I got news for you. Some people cannot AFFORD kids. Some people, for reasons of their own, do not WANT kids. By denying them abortion, you FORCE people to live a life THE DO NOT WANT to protect a POTENTIAL human being, putting that baby into a world WHERE IT IS NOT WANTED.
No, abortion is not something that should be considered lightly. It is a difficult choice that every pregnant woman, who does not WANT a kid, must consider with the greatest care.
Morally, it has nothing to do with you or me. It is not OUR fetus.
Sorry, you probably did not deserve my rant - you seem a decent person. However, this abortion issue is for obvious reasons an emotional one and it is difficult to not get too in-your-face about it.
jefftsFeb 5, 2012
Did you even read my comment? Let me highlight a section for you in ALL CAPS.
"Morally, I believe it is wrong but I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE WOMAN OWNS HER BODY AND HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE."
miklkitFeb 5, 2012
That last sentence should be the end of it right there.
We should not be telling a woman what to do with her body. It is none of our business and there definitely should not be any laws saying what she can and can not do.
BTW, no one is pro abortion. I know some women who have had abortions and all of them felt bad about it, but it was the best choice they had in a bad situation.
ennFeb 5, 2012
But who will speak for the baby?
It's not just her body - it's also body of the baby, which should be considered.
And, usually, there is also father... you know... who also should have some rights, shouldn't he?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jefftsFeb 5, 2012
And yet I'm being buried for expressing that view. Go figure.
I feel as if there is some sort of communication breakdown, or maybe just an overall lack of reading skill, that is preventing people from seeing that I'm stating that it boils down to a woman owning her body. That outweighs my own personal view that it's morally wrong.
If a woman were to come to me and ask me her opinion, I'd tell her I don't believe in it and that she is taking a life. But, in the end, I would tell her that it's her choice to make.
And yet the guy I'm replying to is having a freak out session as though I'm demanding that all women should be forced to have their baby whether they want to or not.
It isn't that hard of a concept to see the world in shades that just aren't black and white.
nerysFeb 5, 2012
but its ok for the women to tell someone else what to do with their body? not only someone else but someone who can not even SPEAK in their own defense! (the child inside her)
linuxpersonFeb 6, 2012
No sweat Jeff, these guys are left / right narrow minded thinkers. In their mind either you are for abortion or against it and that includes forcing your belief on others.
I'm with you on this, in the vast majority of cases I see abortion as immoral. In cases of rape or incest, however, there was no original consent by the mother so I see abortion in this case as analogous to escorting a trespasser off your property.
That being said, most abortions are the result of a consentual sex act between irresponsible adults. Does that mean I think they should be prohibited by the state from getting an abortion? Absolutely not.
That's what makes people like you and I different than the statists. We believe that people can have varying degrees of moral beliefs without having to enforce them on others. Some might call our stances nuanced, others might call them compatiable with free society.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
I agree even consenting adults should be able to get an abortion if they decide they made a bad choice.
BUT I also believe there should be a legally enforced "point of no return" where short of mitigating circumstances the RIGHTS OF THE CHILD should mean something.
fertilebastardFeb 5, 2012
"putting that baby into a world WHERE IT IS NOT WANTED."
On this point you are full of crap. There are couples lining up to adopt these children.
On your other points.. In our society a woman has the option to kill her child if it is an inconvenience right up to the time the kid is delivered.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredFeb 8, 2012
Unfortunately there are too many kids in unwanted homes already - and not enough adopting couples. It is also a big problem that many WANT to adopt, but the legal process is just really long winded.
inajeepFeb 6, 2012
How about the test to see if the fetus has chromosomal disorders which can be tested for?
roguegeniusFeb 7, 2012
"I feel, personally, that it should only be reserved for cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger."
That is great. Provided you truly approach the problem just that way: your PERSONAL view that you do not impose on anybody, even though voting. I don't have that specific of feelings, but I absolutely would not dream of take the decision out of the hands of the person closest to the issue -- the woman herself.
linuxpersonFeb 10, 2012
"I don't have that specific of feelings, but I absolutely would not dream of take the decision out of the hands of the person closest to the issue -- the woman herself."
Out of curiosity, you're okay with abortion occurring in the third trimester?
roguegeniusFeb 10, 2012
Truthfully? Not my call.
rudegarFeb 5, 2012
so your gut feeling say life begin at conception?
my gut feeling say that water boils at 70c
linuxpersonFeb 6, 2012
If life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? A fertilized embryo inside the uterus is in fact a group of living cells with a very high probability of becoming a walking talking human being.
By your definition of life, grandma who is on life support isn't actually alive.
roguegeniusFeb 7, 2012
Sperm and Ova are both fully alive BEFORE conception, so if 'life' is your only criteria, than you are in big trouble. You have to go back nearly 5 billion years before you can find a cell that was 'pre-life.' The question you are looking for is 'when does it become an independent life. And clearly, that is not until late in development.
We are simply going to have to accept he fact that there are no answers to these questions. This is kind of like "What color is the snow north of the north pole." When you get down to that many specifics, all lines are arbitrary - and the question itself is meaningless.
linuxpersonFeb 10, 2012
Swing and a miss.
The question is in regards to when the life form becomes its own distinct entity separate from the mother.
roguegeniusFeb 10, 2012
Sperm was NEVER part of the mother, but it's unquestioningly alive.
I'm not giving you answers here -- I'm just pointing out there there are no answers to be had. I don't know, and you don't know.
The only difference is, I'm smart enough to know what I don't know.
nerysFeb 5, 2012
the issue is not conception. the issue is "WHEN IS" conception? sperm in teh vaginal canal? Sperm insertion into the egg? the first cell divide? what actually IS the point of conception?
he is accepting that if its rape the women SHOULD NOT be forced to bear a child. he is covering his moral compass by saying then lets DO IT before we "KNOW" if there is any conception or not.
that is all. I see nothing wrong with it.
Murder is murder but you can be JUSTIFIED in murder. When a soldier kills an enemy soldier he is committing murder. In fact he is committing premeditated aggravated murder in the 1st degree.
but its "justified" in a war. I see no conflict here.
When I kill someone attacking me on the street its MURDER I intend for that person to die.
but its JUSTIFIED I am defending myself from him trying to kill me.
so YES day after pill COULD be murder but we don't know so that is the best time to do it. BEFORE WE KNOW.
linuxpersonFeb 6, 2012
Murder is a legalese term that represents the unlawful taking of life, I think you need to revisit the definition. Self defense is NOT in any way shape or form murder.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
it appears you are correct. technically the world murder in all definitions I could find has a LEGAL attachment to the definition even though we don't really use it that way in general society but thats ok.
My statements stands. Replace all instances of "murder" with "kill"
linuxpersonFeb 6, 2012
Like I said, murder IS a legal term.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
Like I said it appears you are correct.
any problem?
netantFeb 6, 2012
1) Conception is not proof of human life. A blastocyst of 144 cells is not a human being, nor is a ten-thousand celled fetus.
2) I find Ron Paul phenomenally hypocritical about his response that "true rape" is "abortion-worthy". Either he believes a blastocyst is human life, or he doesn't. But its in keeping with his 1980s-1990s newsletters.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
I don't think its relevant. if its rape the mother should be allowed to abort. Period. but only to a certain point. ie as a society we should decide on a certain "point" in the time line where it goes from being simple abortion to killing another person.
craig1958Feb 5, 2012
Up until now, I considered him a pretty harmless, wacky old guy with a "cult" following. Apparently, I was incorrect; this guy is actually a dick.
Schweppesale2Feb 5, 2012
explain
theforeignwifeFeb 5, 2012
What part needs explanation? The part that he is 'old' a 'guy' has a 'cult following' or is a total 'dick'? It all seems self-evident to me.
Schweppesale2Feb 5, 2012
I just don't see it.
What I can gather thus far about Ron Paul in regard to abortion:
He personally doesn't believe in abortion.
He also doesn't believe in having "federal" laws which regulate abortion
(in any way).
---
He believes that women who have been raped are an exception to this rule - they should be able to get an abortion.
Go ahead, point the "total dick" part out for me.
I must have missed it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theforeignwifeFeb 5, 2012
Ron Paul's exception only refers to the rule as it applies to 'honest rape' not the other types of rape. ...please explain the difference between honest rape and dishonest rape, or any other types of rape for that matter.
(wait - you forgot to mention the ones that are "lying about it")
Schweppesale2Feb 5, 2012
Are you suggesting that women never lie about rape?
It sounds like that's what you're trying to say, but you're afraid to just come out and say it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
narcmavFeb 5, 2012
You seem to be quite the expert on this theforeignwife...you should inform everyone that it's because you accused someone of raping you once so that your idiot husband would believe that you weren't cheating on him.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
narcmavFeb 9, 2012
Just to clarify, my comment was referring to a previous post that was intended to make an example of an honest and dishonest rape. It was made in mockery not factuality.
carcass666Feb 5, 2012
I think the challenge comes when you leave human liberty issues like this to the states. The first time we left an issue of "what is a person" to the states we ended up fighting a civil war over it.
thenameisjvoFeb 5, 2012
Contrary to what's taught in public school systems, The Civil War was not fought over slavery.
Schweppesale2Feb 5, 2012
You can vote thenameisjvo's comment down to oblivion - that won't make it any less true.
The civil war was NOT fought over slavery.
FrankLuskaFeb 5, 2012
Hard time reading the constitution where it says all are "free". This was not left up to the states, And yes, The Civil War was not fought over slavery contrary to popular brainwashing in school.
Read a book, you might learn something or be brainwashed further.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
carcass666Feb 6, 2012
Not sure why responses were all dug down. People are allowed to disagree. You could say that the Civil War was about states rights and property rights - the right to regulate slavery, how to enforce the return of escaped slaves, etc. and less about the slaves themselves. To say that slavery had nothing nothing to do with the Civil War seems a little disingenuous. Fights over things like the 3/5 compromise were clear indicators about the tension slavery caused the early republic, and how to deal with the concepts of slaves as property as opposed to people. The election of Lincoln, who had clear sympathies to the abolitionist movement, triggered the Succession, which triggered the Civil war.
octorussFeb 6, 2012
Hi Schweppesale2, I am theforeignwife's husband. I would very much like to meet you. Please send me your contact information.
roguegeniusFeb 7, 2012
And he threw up that old lie about the Civil War again. So much for 'libertarians' caring about truth.
carcass666Feb 5, 2012
Obviously, females are not to be trusted to properly assert when rape is actually rape. Each woman's claim should be investigated thoroughly by a task force consisting of unbiased men who, after a nine month period, can properly establish if a rape occurred.
In the meantime, to make sure that the woman's rights aren't trampled upon during the investigation, her status has a person should temporarily be suspended, and instead she should be referred to as an incubator, or the more "scientific" term, Axlotl Tank. This will allow us to maintain our libertarian principals, because you can't violate the liberties of a "thing". If we can make corporations legal people, I don't see any reason why we can demote somebody's humanity when a life is at stake.
FrankLuskaFeb 5, 2012
Coming soon in the "New World Order" most keep voting for.
nerysFeb 5, 2012
Know what happens to a man falsely accused of rape? EVEN IF HE WINS many times his life is summarily destroyed.
What about hits rights?
carcass666Feb 6, 2012
Good point. If we were to force rape litmus test for abortion, how many additional false rape charges would there be?
fertilebastardFeb 5, 2012
Paul wants the government to stay out of our life as much as posible.. This is the libertarian view in which he is fairly consistant. Most Republicans and Democrats want to cherry pick where the government may intervene in our lives and the constitution be damned.
chilidogsFeb 5, 2012
“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”
roguegeniusFeb 6, 2012
"Paul wants the government to stay out of our life as much as posible."
And yet, he has no problem sticking his nose in a woman's life.
He wants government out of our lives because he's an idiot. There are words for people who are not part of a strong unity: prey and victim are two of them.
ThinkForYourselfFeb 6, 2012
Poor CNN, they try so hard to sensationalize stuff and make it seem like news. Another 3 minutes of my life i'll never get back.
r0g3rFeb 6, 2012
One tidbit from this really caught my attention, when he said "people who like abortion."
I'm pro-choice, however I do not "like" abortion. I don't think ANYONE except sickos like abortion. This is loaded language that these "pro-lifers" use to demonize anyone who opposes their viewpoint. In fact, I find late term abortion very disturbing and I don't believe it should be legal past a certain point.
However, these self same politicians who claim to be "pro-LIFE" send our children away to KILL and DIE. Ron Paul is pretty much alone in being pro-life and anti-war, every other politician who is "pro-life" is also "pro-death" once the child reaches 18 and can be sent to kill and die. They are also the same politicians who are RIGHT NOW making drastic cuts to programs like WIC which provides nutrition to needy mothers and infants. Life is sacred right up until you exit the womb, then you can starve for all they care.
jivatmanxFeb 5, 2012
This appears to refer to his opinion on its morality, not its legality. He has stated his legal opinion on it many times before: that is should be a state decision.
Basically, that he considers it morally acceptable in case of rape, probably based on the libertarian principle of allowable self-defense.
I really don't think we should attack someone for talking about questions that nobody else is willing to offer their thoughts on. Because that is leading us to the point where every politician is like Mitt Romney and won't says anything outside of a very narrow set of talking points.
darwininmotionFeb 5, 2012
But why a state decision? Why should a rape victim have the choice to abort in one state but not another? This is one are that just makes so much more sense to be Federal and not state based. Penalties perhaps can be different, but whether something is allowed or not, or a crime or not just doesn't make sense to have 50 different applications.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
because maybe one state will get it right and another will get it wrong.
once its vetted out and we have the "best possible" answer maybe then if its important enough we can elevate it to an amendment (lawfully making it a federal issue)
but without that just going right to federal you do NOT necessarily get what is "RIGHT" you get what is DECREED by many times a single individual.
which is precisely WHY our system is supposed to prevent that.
darwininmotionFeb 6, 2012
I get what you're saying, but it seems mega inefficient. Power/law sharing b/w state and federal seems way overdue for an overhaul. I think it's one of the things Australia does really well, but then again, we're a lot smaller and newer the the US :)
nerysFeb 6, 2012
The POINT was not to be efficient. the whole stinking god damned POINT was to retain FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.
darwininmotionFeb 6, 2012
And have 50 different systems? I'm not trying to antagonise, it just doesn't make sense for so many areas that affect the entire country.
And then wouldn't that be doubling up of Federal and State governments, duplicate departements, etc?
nerysFeb 7, 2012
it makes perfect sense. you see when PA and CA get it right and MD and FL get it wrong the citizens in MD and FL can say to their government SEE PA and CA got it right DO IT THEIR WAY or else and if they still refuse those people can MOVE ie vote with their feet.
but when its on central government you get ONE WAY AND ONLY ONE WAY regardless if its right or wrong.
remember the POINT is not to be efficient. efficiency is not relevant. the point is to retain FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.
we would not HAVE 50 different systems. we might have a FEW different systems but eventually you would get singularity as the systems all migrated to the most "ideal form" created amongst the many.
Not the form DECREED by one individual as is often the case in our current system. and that one individual in ALL PROBABILITY DOES NOT HAVE YOUR INTERESTS IN MIND. he has HIS interests in mind or the interests of the one PAYING HIM.
that is the point. LOTS of repetition. the more thinly we spread it the HARDER it is for corruption to get a foothold and the EASIER it is to rout it out when it tries.
bobbi21Feb 7, 2012
Don't think you necessarily get whats right going state by state either and often still get what's decreed. And minority rights more often then not get ignored by state governments. Civil liberties, slavery, etc have a poor record of state by state control.
I think it's fair to say states should have more control over these issues but it just should be known what problems that would cause. Slavery might still be legal if we left it to the states.
nerysFeb 7, 2012
when an issue is important enough (such as segregation slavery etc..) that is when and where the federal government is SUPPOSED to step in. to protect and defend the constitution.
that is what an AMENDMENT is for.
Your slavery example is a PERFECT example of the INTENDED government working exactly as it SHOULD WORK.
that is NOT how it works today.
ophelloFeb 5, 2012
Poor choice of words, but there's nothing wrong with his intentions.
ageofmasteryFeb 5, 2012
Ron Paul is placing last in all the Republican primaries. Who cares what this racist, misogynist assh**e thinks.
linuxpersonFeb 5, 2012
Seeing as how you took the time to read the article and comment, I'd say you do.
I worry about the future of this country when kids like you actually represent the more intelligent of your generation. Most of the people in my generation raised freedom hating social parasites, good job baby boomer assh**es.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kaegroFeb 5, 2012
"I worry about the future of this country when kids like you actually represent the more intelligent of your generation. Most of the people in my generation raised freedom hating social parasites, good job baby boomer assh**es."
...so much stupid, so little time...
icwydFeb 5, 2012
THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!
linuxpersonFeb 6, 2012
So much troll, so little time.
youareretardedFeb 5, 2012
At least you admit your generations failures;)
linuxpersonFeb 6, 2012
I've lived to see the fruits of their labor and it isn't pretty.
jacquelynekFeb 5, 2012
"Ron Paul is placing last in all the Republican primaries. Who cares what this racist, misogynist assh**e thinks."
This ^^^^^
beanphonerFeb 5, 2012
He's in 3rd place. Count the delegates...
FPSmotoFeb 5, 2012
The candidate with the most money tends to do pretty well.... He's not racist, and not a misognyist. I mean he's a f**king obgyn who only delivered what, 4,000 babies in his life as a doctor? Abortion is clearly a tough subject and can be a lot more complicated than people think. I am pro life, but only to the point where the mother's life is more at risk, making child birth impossible or in the cases of rape and incest.
I believe that 2 consenting adults that knowingly made the decision to sleep together, regardless of their intentions (such as if they wore a condom or were using birth control), should be responsible for their own actions. If a woman is not yet ready to become pregnant, then she can always give the child up for adoption.
The biggest question I think people face is where do we draw the line? Do we let a woman abort a fetus that is about 9 months old that has a heartbeat of its own? Do we only let a woman abort a fetus up until the first or second trimester? He's simply making the case that it's obviously a heated subject and although he believes in life at conception, he's also realizing that a woman that did not CHOOSE to get raped or molested should not have to go through the burden of a pregnancy. The thing about rape is we need to teach women not to be afraid of speaking up about their health, and getting a shot of estrogen or the use of a plan B pill or something early enough before enough time goes by for the sperm to fertilize the egg.
With that said, he also believes in personal responsibility, meaning a woman has already CHOSEN to have sex, and therefore MUST be ready for motherhood. The simplest way a woman can prevent an unwanted pregnancy is to NOT HAVE SEX. There's a novel idea... Something is really wrong with our species to continue to abort fetuses out of inconvenience or a lack of planning on the couple's part.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kaegroFeb 5, 2012
abortion=/=murder
icwydFeb 5, 2012
mur·der/ˈmərdər/
Noun:
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Fetus != Human Being
kaegroFeb 5, 2012
human embryo =/= human being.
breadfredFeb 5, 2012
human sperm + human egg = human embryo = /= human being. You are a mass murderer.
gaia242Feb 5, 2012
.....every sperm is scared,
every sperm is great
is a sperm is wasted
god gets quite irate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
gaia242Feb 5, 2012
doh! third line should be "if a sperm is wasted", not 'is' a sperm is wasted.
anub1sFeb 6, 2012
You should probably have corrected your "scared" to "sacred" as well. I don't know about you, but I've never heard of a frightened sperm.
gaia242Feb 6, 2012
HAHA thats it! I just fired my editor.
gotapointFeb 5, 2012
Here's a question.
If life begins at conception and abortion is murder, does that mean that a miscarriage is involuntary manslaughter? Child abuse?
nerysFeb 5, 2012
more like falling and whacking your head and dying.
ie accidental death. unless someone pushes you IE causes the fall.
gotapointFeb 6, 2012
Ok, then it's just child neglect or endangerment?
The point is where we draw the line. A woman who doesn't "eat right" or take care of the fetus "properly" facing legal ramifications because human life (therefore human rights) begins at conception can become a slippery slope that I, for one, do not want to fall for.
Yes, adoption is a better answer but tell that to all the kids in the foster care system that will never be adopted.
Outlawing abortion should only happen when orphanages are empty and social workers are sitting there with nothing to do...
nerysFeb 6, 2012
If you asked those kids when they grow up. would you have rather been DEAD than here in a foster home.
gotapointFeb 6, 2012
As a "foster sister" to some of those in the foster care system- and as many "suicide watches" as I've been on.... I would say that yes some (not all) of those kids felt that they would be better off dead. Usually because they took their sense of self-worth from the fact that their mother did not want them.
The common response to "get over it" is to separate themselves from caring what the rest of the world thought about them - which is also often the response for those that end up in our jail systems. Again, this is for some - not all - of those in the system.
For many people being adopted (and for some in the foster care system as well) this is a great experience and they've grown up very well adjusted. And this is the best solution. However, reality is that there are plenty of people this does not work out for and it all starts with: if the mother wants the kid - she'll take of the kid, and if she doesn't ...well...we all pay for it one way or another.
Not everyone is strong enough to ignore the rejection, and every one of those kids is scarred for life.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
I did not say ask the kids. I said ask them when they are adults.
what YOU describe is irrelevant since the SAME thing could happen with perfectly normal parents with kids raised in a less than perfect life.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
geejayeFeb 6, 2012
"If you asked those kids when they grow up. would you have rather been DEAD than here in a foster home."
Yah - if my Mom had decided not to "do it" when my Dad had the twinkle in his eye - would I regret it?
Or - if my Mom had decided to abort me before I could conceptualize life - would I regret it?
I wouldn't be here to regret it now, would I?
fitzal77Feb 6, 2012
And having sex with a pregnant woman is child molestation.
geejayeFeb 5, 2012
Good point. "Pro-lifers" claim that an embryo is an "unborn child". So, therefore, abortion is murder.
However, like Ron Paul, a high percent of them will also say that it is okay to make exceptions for rape and incest.
If a woman bears a child via rape or incest and then, 3 months later, kills that baby, that would be murder.
So why isn't the abortion of an embryo from rape and incest not murder according to these "pro-lifers"?
Bottom line, it is because their "unborn child" meme is simply ideological rhetoric brought to us by the likes of Frank Luntz.
jivatmanxFeb 5, 2012
Because it's acceptable to use violence in self-defense against an act of aggression. That's one of the most basic elements of libertarian ideology, and is pretty consistent with defensive war being the only justified war.
geejayeFeb 5, 2012
Go after the aggressor, the rapist.
It is not acceptable to use violence against children, though. And the "pro-lifers" feel that embryos are, indeed "unborn children".
nerysFeb 5, 2012
except the child did not cause aggression against you but THAT is who your killing?
jivatmanxFeb 5, 2012
The essence of all morality is free will. If someone did not freely choose something than they simple cannot be held morally responsible for it.
If someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to kill someone, you're not morally responsible for it.
If someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to conceive, you're not responsible for it.
Sure, the third person is innocent, but because you did not choose to do so out of free will, you are not morally responsible for it.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
The child did not freely choose either.
"If someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to kill someone, you're not morally responsible for it.
If someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to conceive, you're not responsible for it. "
I assume a simple typo but in your second example YES you are responsible (you did it after all) your not MORALLY responsible because someone else made you do it (just wanted to be clear on that)
we are talking about two SEPARATE acts here.
ONE act is the non consentual sex IE rape. of that you are NOT morally responsible.
The other is TERMINATING another life. where is the GUN making you kill the baby?
should a mother be forced to keep a baby from rape? NO
Should she be allowed to abort it? MAYBE
the maybe comes from WHEN in my book.
if at any time the baby imminently threatens the mother than mother's choice should always win 100% of the time.
the maybe comes from when the baby does NOT threaten the mother.
Immediately afterward it should always be mothers choice (EVEN IN CONSENTING SEX)
but once it becomes what we recognize as Sentient Life it should have RIGHTS.
the issue for me is not if but when. WHEN does it count as sentient life. I say when it has a brain and can "make decisions"
how do we define when that is?
I also believe the MAN should have some choice if HE does not want it. after all we will COMPEL him to legal responsibility for it,Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
geejayeFeb 6, 2012
"the issue for me is not if but when. WHEN does it count as sentient life. I say when it has a brain and can "make decisions""
And this is where we can start coming towards an agreement.
Most people don't think that abortion is good at 9 months. And, a high percent of people agree that abortion/the morning after pill within 24 hours of sex is not bad.
So - I think that we have, minimally, created a window of when abortion is not bad (for most): within the first trimester...
roguegeniusFeb 5, 2012
I don't know what people are constantly surprised when crazy people say crazy s**t. Have you ever looked into his economic beliefs? Seriously?
kwanijmlFeb 6, 2012
Actually, it's because his beliefs on abortion are not consistent to the same principles that his economic beliefs are, that he is wrong on the subject of abortion.
His economic views consistently apply property rights, based on the non-aggression principle.
His views on abortion take only account of the fetus. . . and ignore the woman's absolute right to her body.
Ron Paul's not perfect. . . but he sure is in a whole other league than the rest of the politicians (democrat and republican alike), in being correct and consistent.
You wouldn't agree either way, though. Your concept of morality and of rights is based on a fleeting expediency of the moment. . . whatever the masses want; even if the majority is of only 51% who would tyrannize the 49%. Your thought processes and worldview have no basis in logic or even a fundamental understanding of epistemology. . . .simply a cursory examination of "facts" with which you form a superficial and incorrect model of the universe around you. . . you still think everything revolves around the state (i.e. you are thinking geocentrically), that is why life seems so complex and zero-sum to you. . . it requires complexities and mind-bending machinations to explain the data, your observations. . . . there are those like Ron Paul (who are more like a modern day copernicus; except where it comes to a few issues, like abortion), they have the same data and make the same observations as people like you; but instead of making a superficial judgement on the world around them, based on the same data and "facts" that you have, they look more deeply and develop a theoretical framework, which provides a more simple, but beautiful interpretation of the facts; which eliminates the need for the complexities, the machinations, the web of state interventions, in order to explain the true workings of an economy. . . . we do indeed revolve around the sun, and not the other way around. If you can just open your mind to this simple fact (economic progress does not revolve around the state), then a whole world of truth and enlightenment are opened to your eyes.
Some of us, like Ron Paul see this, and (his obvious flaws aside), it is nothing if not laughable to hear criticism of his economic theories from a Ptolemy like you. You are nothing but a Catholic church to a Galileo. You are completely out of your league and intellect to even a person as inconsistent as Ron Paul.
roguegeniusFeb 6, 2012
Nice screed, but my concept of morality is too complicated for you, or Paul, to grasp. And having actually read the works of Kant, Smith, Hobbs, Locke (Names I'm sure you quote, but have clearly never read) not to mention the old standards of Aquinas, Augustine -- even Aristotle. I have a fairly well rounded concept of ethics and morality. Surely better than your inferior 'cram everything in the same hole' morality. But, simple concepts for simple minds I guess. I really shouldn't expect better of you -- and I certainly don't expect better of Paul, who fairly consistently rides the crazy train wherever it takes him.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 5, 2012
I have a firm stance on the abortion issue. I can't have one - so it's not my business.
1 dick = no right to an opinion on this.
linuxpersonFeb 6, 2012
Everybody has a right to an opinion, for you to claim otherwise shows your ignorance of how a free society operates.
roguegeniusFeb 6, 2012
I have an opinion that you shouldn't be using the name of a great OS to be spouting right-wing nonsense.
Hey, I have a right to that opinion, right? *Hint* I don't really. It doesn't really affect me, and the right thing to do is just shut up about it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 6, 2012
This, in a nutshell, is why America keeps failing. We have the completely baseless notion that there is a fundamental 'right' and that we have the right to impose that on all. Morality is a social contract and doesn't exist outside a social system. There is no "God given' right or wrong.
Once you leave 'society' your rights just evaporated. You are not going to 'wag your finger' out of a wolfs jaws.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysFeb 7, 2012
that is where the second amendment comes in. I SHOOT the damned wolves.
roguegeniusFeb 7, 2012
With a gun somebody else made for you. And without civilization (The hated 'collective' libertarians are always demonizing), you better hope there are no more wolves than rounds your than your clip holds, because you won't be getting any more.
nerysFeb 9, 2012
libertarians don't hate civilization. anarchists hate civilization.
Libertarians hate government that stomps on liberty and freedom.
where do you get this crap?
if I run out of rounds then I use my fists. if thats not enough then I guess I die.
roguegeniusFeb 9, 2012
Yes. Exactly. You die.
I don't really want you to die for no reason, but if you insist on it, I guess that's just evolution. One way or another, your way turned out to be a dead end.
Schweppesale2Feb 10, 2012
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"
linuxpersonFeb 10, 2012
People who hold anti-freedom ideas like you, in a nutshell, are why America keeps failing.
roguegeniusFeb 10, 2012
Vague platitude. Care to flesh out exactly HOW "I" am failing America by insisting we not waste anymore time on ideas that failed a century ago?
It's not like I'm the one insisting we revisit something we know from history won't work.
jeremerg82Feb 5, 2012
What a moron!
hibby76Feb 6, 2012
When a 18 year old get's his 17 year old girl friend pregnant, it's not an "honest rape" even though the law may declare it statutory rape.
iclavdivsFeb 6, 2012
I'm tired all over after an honest day's rape, but it's the good kind of tired. Ya Know?
mageg4Feb 6, 2012
And he said this to what I think is the biggest advertisement for the wonders of abortion. Seriously, f**k Piers Morgan right up the arse with an anglepoise lamp.
gotapointFeb 6, 2012
As a "foster sister" to some of those in the foster care system- and as many "suicide watches" as I've been on.... I would say that yes some (not all) of those kids felt that they would be better off dead. Usually because they took their sense of self-worth from the fact that their mother did not want them.
The common response to "get over it" is to separate themselves from caring what the rest of the world thought about them - which is also often the response for those that end up in our jail systems. Again, this is for some - not all - of those in the system.
For many people being adopted (and for some in the foster care system as well) this is a great experience and they've grown up very well adjusted. And this is the best solution. However, reality is that there are plenty of people this does not work out for and it all starts with: if the mother wants the kid - she'll take of the kid, and if she doesn't ...well...we all pay for it one way or another.
Not everyone is strong enough to ignore the rejection, and every one of those kids is scarred for life.
mcoulter876Feb 6, 2012
Honest Rape: The girl has actually been raped.
Dishonest Rape: The girl feels guilty about having consensual sex and then chooses to say she has been raped.
suzillaFeb 6, 2012
If you think of pregnancy in terms of having another human being hooked up to you so that they can survive by being fed from your body, the reason to keep abortions legal becomes clear. If you make the claim that it is one person's responsibility to maintain the life of another, even to the point of requiring the former to provide that support from their own body, you now establish the basis whereupon ANYONE can be saddled with that responsibility. A gross, but plausible example might be some "important person" who needs a liver transplant and a candidate with a good tissue match is found but refuses to consent to donating a part of his or her liver to save this other person's life. Requiring life-saving or life-sustaining donations by law would require this donor to undergo possibly life-threatening (certainly life-altering) surgery to save the other.
And, if you think pregnancy is neither life-threatening nor life-altering, ask someone who's been pregnant and had kids.
magnetism86Feb 6, 2012
You do realize that the majority of reported rapes are total bulls**t right?
Just saying.
It's obvious that a lot of women are claiming they are raped in order to justify unnecessary abortions, to justify assassinating their unborn child. Not because they were raped, but because they're irresponsible and don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions.
thorspowerFeb 5, 2012
A lot of these problems with abortion would not be an issue if the GOP would embrace comprehensive sex education. That means giving the real data on how birth control works and its effectiveness. Offering free birth control to those who cannot afford it. Stop spreading lies on the effectiveness of even simply using condoms you have people running around saying you may as well have a screen from a screen door around your penis. We keep pushing abstinence only programs which are clearly ineffective.
paultripFeb 6, 2012
Ron Paul is a quack.....and enough is enough......good bye Mr. Paul.
Evilswine32Feb 6, 2012
When are people going to get that Ron Paul is far from an intelligent man. He can't state his opinions consistently and eloquently, his stand on most topics are extreme at best, and he doesn't believe in evolution. To think that his beliefs won't effect his governing is completely naive. The man is a nutcase, deal with it and move on to a more realistic candidate. Just because he's the underdog, and is apparently "honest" doesn't make him a viable candidate. Ron Paul "fans" need to move beyond their stage of teenage rebellion and see the ridiculousness of Ron Pauls positions.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nachocheaseFeb 6, 2012
I think people are finally starting to realize that it's impossible to support Paul if you're not a white heterosexual man from a decently privileged background (like 95% of libertarians).
What he is essentially saying here is that only "pure women" are entitled to abortions - all the others are undeserving sluts.
And while Paul is against the Federal government from intruding in peoples lives, he would just give individual states strong liberties to f*ck with you. The guy is a nut job.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dalexandruzFeb 5, 2012
Pro Abortion you have 2 options: Have the Baby, Discard the baby. Anti-Abortion you have 1 option: Have the baby. So if Ron Paul is Anti-Abortion he is giving no freedom of choice over a woman's body.
It is sad how some women wait 2-7 months than decide to have an abortion even if the baby is healthy. If you are having sex and do not want a baby what is it so hard to take your birth control pills or make sure the guy has a rubber on, take f**king responsibility. Keep abortion legal.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaFeb 5, 2012
I agree with most everything, except.
"So if Ron Paul is Anti-Abortion he is giving no freedom of choice over a woman's body. "
Ron Paul has never tried to force his opinion on anyone at anytime.
salbatrossFeb 5, 2012
Nobody is pro-abortion.
kwanijmlFeb 6, 2012
Nobody is pro-poverty either, but by subsidizing welfare the way our government does, we have actually increased the numbers of poor and those in need of assistance. It's the result of an immutable economic law.
I'm a person who believes that a woman's body is her property and her right to *legally* evict an unwanted fetus.
However, the last thing we should be doing as a society is essentially subsidizing abortion. We want the medical technology and option available, of course, but in some ways we practically throw planned parenthood and girls and woman, and make it seem like there aren't other options.
It's a societal issue, in my mind, not so much a legal one; if we hadn't made it a legal issue, I believe that there would actually be fewer abortions done, because the backlash was a societal response to not only protect the right to abort a fetus, but to ensconce it as almost a medical necessity for those who don't want to have the baby.
devinemoneymanFeb 5, 2012
Ron Paul 2012 Will WIN ..From Canada..Down with the new world order way of slave/control of free will..Lots of new world order sh*t puppets like mitt and CNN ect.. People are waking up controlled media mindless assh**es ..Rothschild and other oppressors this is no JOKE,,YOU LOSE..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
slearwigFeb 5, 2012
It's different for girls, Mr. Paul.
veganpaFeb 5, 2012
Wow, the "libertarian" actually hates women? Who knew, other than anyone paying attention?
shingoexFeb 5, 2012
"Life does begin at conception"
"Well, you don't know if you're taking a life either..."
MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND.
*facepalm*. It's pretty bad when the overall best chance the GOP had at redemption said something as f**k-stupid as that. This is the best they have, folks...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysFeb 5, 2012
nothing stupid about it. define conception.
once you do that tell me exactly when "that" happens.
morons.
shingoexFeb 5, 2012
The point at which the sperm fertilizes the egg...
I need to stop visiting Digg. I already have a bad enough image of humanity without people like you around.
You *do* realize you can't abort without conception occurring, right? PLEASE tell me you understand this basic concept. If you do, then you'll understand why Paul's comment is STUPID.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
again. tell me when that happens. Its amazing to come onto digg and find idiots like you that can not GRASP basic concepts.
MURDER is wrong. its ALWAYS WRONG. 100% of the time NO EXCEPTIONS.
it can however be JUSTIFIED. this does not change that it is still wrong. this does not make it "right" suddenly. it SIMPLY means its JUSTIFIED.
Abortion is always MURDER but it can be JUSTIFIED.
this concept is alien to feeble minded people like you.
shingoexFeb 6, 2012
"Its amazing to come onto digg and find idiots like you that can not GRASP basic concepts",
...and then you said this:
"MURDER is wrong. its ALWAYS WRONG. 100% of the time NO EXCEPTIONS."
"Abortion is always MURDER but it can be JUSTIFIED."
Justification is an exception, you oaf.
There is apparently no way to make you understand that what you just said defies LOGIC.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
No the failure is yours. You presume that JUSTIFICATION equates to "no longer wrong"
and this is simply not true. The logic failure is yours.
"to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded"
Murder is NEVER right but it can be JUSTIFIED.
I am sorry this simple concept is beyond your ability to understand.
shingoexFeb 6, 2012
"Murder is NEVER right but it can be JUSTIFIED."
The fact you can't understand the contradiction of this statement shows your idiocy.
Justification is a sign of doing the wright thing.
"Declared or made righteous in the sight of God."
Thus you say it can never be right. You're WRONG.
Idiot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
I do not accept or use the "religious" definition of Justified. I posted my DICTIONARY SOURCED definition of the word justified.
"to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded"
I am right. you are wrong. I have backed up my statements.
I could give a s**t less what "god" thinks of my decisions.
shingoexFeb 6, 2012
My quote is dictionary-sourced as well. Apparently, the dictionary is both right and wrong, according to you. Make up your damn mind.
shingoexFeb 6, 2012
And another one:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/justified
Also, Google "justified defintion", and you'll see my "DICTIONARY SOURCED" definition that says "Declared or made righteous in the sight of God."
Don't ironically yell at me when I'm doing the same thing you are. I don't give a s**t about God either, but the print is RIGHT THERE.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nerysFeb 6, 2012
You do realizes that those definitions are NUMBERED for a reason right?
PLEASE tell me your intelligent enough to realize what that means.